alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: j.goodner@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:51:40 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,

Jason Goodner

Fairmount, IL 61841
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1340 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1340

  Recognizing the 358th Fighter Group for its outstanding service and 
  bravery during World War II and commending its successor, the 122nd 
   Fighter Wing, for continuing its legacy of excellence in service.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 14, 2008

 Mr. Souder submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Recognizing the 358th Fighter Group for its outstanding service and 
  bravery during World War II and commending its successor, the 122nd 
   Fighter Wing, for continuing its legacy of excellence in service.

Whereas the 358th Fighter Group, also known as the Orange Tail, was activated on 
        January 1, 1943;
Whereas in April 1944, the 358th Fighter Group was instrumental in the 
        preparation for the invasion of Normandy;
Whereas 4 Distinguished Unit Citations (DUCs) were awarded to the Orange Tail;
Whereas the first DUC earned was for assisting the 7th Army and defending Allied 
        airfields during an intense German air invasion during December 1944 and 
        January 1945;
Whereas the second DUC was earned for actions that prevented the March 1945 
        evacuation of German military forces;
Whereas the third DUC was awarded for attacking air fields, assisting Allied 
        armies, and destroying significant German transportation equipment;
Whereas the fourth DUC was given by the French in gratitude for liberation;
Whereas the 358th Fighter Group displayed utmost determination, bravery, and 
        conducted many acts of courage and skill;
Whereas the 358th Fighter Group was inactivated in 1945 and recreated as the 
        122nd Fighter Wing in 1946 as part of the Indiana Air National Guard, 
        now located in Fort Wayne, Indiana;
Whereas the 122nd Fighter Wing has continued the 358th Fighter Group's honorable 
        legacy, and has been deployed in the Berlin crisis, Operation Desert 
        Storm, Operation Northern Watch, Operation Southern Watch, and the 
        Global War on Terror; and
Whereas the 122nd Fighter Wing has continued the excellent service which was 
        exemplary in the 358th Fighter Group, and has been awarded four Air 
        Force Outstanding Unit awards: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives honors the 358th 
Fighter Group for its outstanding service and bravery during World War 
II, and commends its successor, the 122nd Fighter Wing, for continuing 
its legacy of excellence in service.
                                 <all>
```
No. 68888.

#### Aristo-Craft Distinctive Miniatures *v.*United States,

protest 63/19639 (Los Angeles).

*311Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of miniature motors similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 66961, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Third Division,

June 28, 1957

No. 60982.

protest 180598-K (New York).

#### Eastern Air Lines, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

This protest involved four entries on four aircraft: Entry No. 187 on aircraft No. 15773, entry No. 4484 on aircraft No. 28385, entry No. 4274 on aircraft No. 28381, and entry No. 3280 on aircraft No. 18916. At the trial, plaintiff abandoned the protest, insofar as it covered entry No. 3280 on aircraft No. 18916, because it was untimely as to that entry. From the testimony and the official papers, which were received in evidence, the aircraft were flown to Canada together with parts for assembly therein. When they were returned, entries were made covering the airplanes and parts. The airplanes and such parts as were identified by the collector as American products were allowed free entry and the balance was assessed with duty. Counsel for the plaintiff abandoned the claim for free entry as to all the items described on entries 187, 4484, and 4274, as set forth in schedules *“A,” “B,” “G,”*respectively, attached to and made a part of the decision. In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the remaining items were manufactures or products of the United States, having been returned to the United States after having been exported, without having been advanced in value or improved in condition, and that all of the applicable customs regulations had been complied with, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained as to said items. As to the items described in said schedules “A,” “B,” and “C,” and as to the items in entry 3280, the protest, having been abandoned, was overruled.
From: lcichos@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:41:42 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,

Dorothy Cichos

Bennett, CO 80102
Case No. 9,486.

#### MERRYFIELD et al. v. JONES.

[2 Curt. 306.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts.

May Term, 1855.

Bonds — Fob Injunction — Action fob Dama oes— Poweb of Coubt of Equitt.

A court of equity cannot order the complainant and his sureties on an injunction bond, to pay the damages sustained by reason of the injunction. The defendant must resort to an action on the bond.

[Citedjn Spencer v. Sherwin, 86 Iowa. 120. 53 N. W. 86; City of St. Louis v. St. Louis Gaslight Co., 82 Mo. 350; Sturgis v. Knapp, 33 Yt. 522.]

R. H. Dana, Jr., in behalf of [Edwin] Jones, moved the court to refer to a master, the question, how much damage Jones had suffered by reason of temporary injunction, restraining him from using a machine alleged to be patented; and that the complainants [William J. Merryfield and others], and their sureties, in a bond, conditioned to pay to Jones any damages he might suffer by reason of that injunction, if finally determined not to be rightful, might be decreed to pay the same. And he showed that the bill had been dismissed, and the injunction dissolved.

The motion was resisted by Mr. Brigham, for complainants.

CURTIS, Circuit Justice.

It is not incident to the general powers of a court of equity to proceed against the principals and sureties on such a bond, and enforce payment of the damages secured by its condition, by a decree. It would be a convenient, and, perhaps, a proper power, to be conferred on the courts of the United States by congress. In Hiriart v. Ballon, 9 Pet. [34 U. S.] 156, it was held that by virtue of a rule of the state courts of Louisiana, adopted under the act of congress of May 26, 1824 (4 Stat. 62), by the circuit court of the United States, there might be a summary judgment against the principal and sureties in an appeal bond at law. The objection that a suit on a bond is, in its nature, a suit at the common law, and so that a right to a trial by jury is conferred by the seventh amendment of the constitution, seems not to have been overlooked in that case; though how far it was considered does not appear. If not determined, it is a grave question, Gwin v. Breedlove, 2 How. [43 U. S.] 29; Gwin v. Martin, 6 How. [47 U. S.] 7. But I do not find it necessary to consider it, in this case, because I am clearly of opinion, that aside from positive legislation, a court of equity does not afford a remedy on such bonds. It must be sought by an action at law. Bean v. Heath, 12 How. [53 U. S.] 168. Motion denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1531 

ESTELLA LEANDRE,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A76-925-766)

Submitted: January 28, 2005 Decided: February 18, 2005

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,

Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney

General, Donald E. Keener, Deputy Director, John Andre, Senior

Litigation Counsel, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*

Leandre’s petition for review is timely only as to the

Board’s April 1, 2004 order denying a motion to reopen. 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(b)(1) (2000) (petition for review must be filed within

thirty days of final order of removal); see Stone v. INS, 514 U.S.

386, 405-06 (1995) (holding order of removal and denial of motion

to reconsider are separate final orders, each subject to relevant

time limit for review). Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to

consider the Board’s August 29, 2003 order affirming the

immigration judge, the January 16, 2004 order denying the motion to

reconsider, or the August 5, 2004 order denying the motion to

reconsider the April 1, 2004 denial of the motion to reopen. 

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Estella Leandre, a native and citizen of Haiti, seeks

review of an April 1, 2004 order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen.* We have reviewed

the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not

abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(a) (2004) (grant or denial of motion to reopen is within

the discretion of the Board); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24

(1992); Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir. 1999).

Therefore, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 34.1

[Letterhead of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP]







Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors
Protective Life Insurance Company:

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Management's Report on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing Criteria that Protective Life Insurance Company complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the Funding Agreement Registered Notes Platform (the Platform), as of December 31, 2008 and for the year then ended, excluding (i) the criteria which the Company has determined are not applicable to the servicing activities performed by them with respect to the Platform and (ii) the servicing activities that are applicable to the Platform but are excluded from the scope of management's assertion and are not reported on herein, as indicated in Appendix A of Management's Assertion on Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing Criteria.  Appendix B to management's assertion identifies the individual asset-backed transactions and securities defined by management as constituting the Platform.  Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  Our examination included testing of selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria.  Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report.  Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2008 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.





/s/PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Birmingham, Alabama
March 16, 2009
Exhibit32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of Smith Barney Westport Futures Fund L.P. (the"Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the periodending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, David J. Vogel, President and Director of Citigroup Managed FuturesLLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

(2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Partnership.

/s/ David J.Vogel

|  |
|--|
|  |  |
|  |

David J.VogelCitigroup Managed Futures LLC President andDirector     Date: November 9,2005

----
No. 64480.

#### Swift & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 214893-K, etc. (New York).

*248Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with, stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beef similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *J. H. Brown et al.*(46 C.C.P.A. 1, C.A.D. 686), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0001036070
<NAME> VIRGINIA FEDERAL CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          20,816
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   475
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     71,993
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          45,092
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           117,289
<LOANS>                                        267,161
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,547
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 412,589
<DEPOSITS>                                     361,263
<SHORT-TERM>                                     6,165
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,723
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        20,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,438
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 412,589
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 12,014
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,213
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   139
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                15,366
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               6,847
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,012
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            8,354
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      408
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  4,980
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,850
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       4,850
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,308
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.83
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.05
<LOANS-NON>                                        804
<LOANS-PAST>                                       421
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,753
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      637
<RECOVERIES>                                        23
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,547
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,265
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            282
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 of Flurida Group, Inc. (the “Company”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated: March 31, 2011
By:
/s/ Yaru HangYaru HangChief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Flurida Group, Inc. and will be retained by Flurida Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.