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

House Calendar No. 288 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1526 

[Report No. 110–908] 

Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules and waiving 

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

of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 2, 2008 

Ms. SUTTON, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; 

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules 

and waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII 

with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules. 

1 Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time 

2 through the legislative day of October 3, 2008, for the 

3 Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the 

4 rules. The Speaker or her designee shall consult with the 

5 minority leader or his designee on the designation of any 

6 matter for consideration pursuant to this resolution. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1526 RH 

1 SEC. 2. The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII 

2 for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Com3 mittee on Rules on the same day it is presented to the 

4 House is waived with respect to any resolution reported 

5 through the legislative day of October 3, 2008. 

6 SEC. 3. House Resolution 1516 is laid on the table. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 288 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1526 

[Report No. 110–908] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of motions to suspend 

on Rules. certain resolutions reported from the Committee 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of the rules and waiving a requirement of clause 

OCTOBER 2, 2008 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
From: vitcon1116@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:35:59 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,

francis nguyen

Saint Petersburg, FL 33714
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7268
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CALVIN JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at R ichmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-93-7, CA-96-210-3) Submitted: December 11, 1997 Decided: December 31, 1997 Before HALL and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Calvin Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Howard Crawford Vick, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Johnson , Nos. CR-93-7; CA-96-210-3 (E.D. Va. Aug. 21, 1997). We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and 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.

DISMISSED
Case No. 8,761.

#### McDONALD v. MAGRUDER.

[3 Cranch, C. C. 298.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

May Term, 1828.

Contribution — Accommodation Paper — Sureties.

The indorsers of accommodation paper are to he considered as joint sureties, and liable to contribution.

But see Magruder v. McDonald [Case No. 8,965].

Assumpsit by the last indorser against his immediate indorser of S. Turner’s note, dated 15th October, 1823, for $150 at 60 days, payable to the defendant [George B. Magruder] at the Bank of the Metropolis, where it was discounted for the accommodation of Turner. The plaintiff [John G. McDonald], being the last indorser, put his initials to these words, at one corner of the note,“Credit the drawer.” The note not having been paid by the maker, was taken up by the, plaintiff, who brought this suit against the first indorser. The plaintiff and the maker of the note were both clerks in the office of the secretary of the senate. The cause was tried at December term, 1825.

The counsel for the defendant contended that, as no consideration passed between these indorsers, the plaintiff could only recover upon the principle that joint sureties were liable to contribution. That the words “credit the drawer” were evidence that the indorsers were to be considered as joint sureties.

Mr. Wallach, for plaintiff,

prayed the court to instruct the jury that these words were not evidence that the plaintiff and defendant had jointly agreed to become indorsers for the accommodation of Turner; which instruction THE COURT (MORSELL, Circuit Judge, absent) refused to give, and the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for only half the amount of the note.

Mr. Wallach moved for a new trial,

on the ground that the court erred in the refusal of the instruction.

But

THE COURT

(MORSELL, Circuit Judge, absent)

refused the new trial. They thought the memorandum was evidence that the plaintiff never paid the defendant any thing for the note, and therefore the plaintiff could recover nothing from the defendant unless upon the ground that the defendant had agreed to become joint surety with the plaintiff; and that the jury did right in finding a verdict for only half of the amount of the note.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT JOHN GARY BUTLER, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D14-2561 ) CYNTHIA PRINE, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed February 20, 2015.

A ppeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Linda R. Allan, Judge. Tori A. Butler of Alderuccio & Butler, LLC, Naples, for Appellant. Kathryn Marie Welsh of KM Welsh, P.A., Largo, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. John Gary Butler appeals a "supplemental final judgment" that was entered in a postdissolution proceeding that resolved several p ostjudgment motions and petitions that had been filed on his behalf, as well as on beha lf of his former wife, Cynthia Prine. Mr. Butler raises several issues concerning the trial court's findings, rulings, and awards that are set forth in the supplemental fina l judgment. We affirm in all respects without discussion except for $93,202.26 in attorn ey's fees that was- 2 - awarded to Ms. Prine. The evidence presented to the trial cour t justified a fee award of some amount in this case. However, we are unconvinced that the trial court adequately considered the reasonableness and necessity of all of the legal work underlying these fees. Accordingly, we reverse only the award of attorney's fee s and remand that matter to permit the trial court to reconsider the award. On remand, the court is authorized to

receive evidence in addition to the evidence in this record. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

ALTENBERND, MORRIS, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
No. 336.

#### Peterson et al. *v.*Tharp.

*Ellis F. Morris*for petitioners.

*W. Ervin James*for respondent.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
From: sueoregon@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:09:05 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,

Sue Stangland

Lake Oswego, OR 97034
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 Annual Report of IX Energy Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the period  ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven
Hoffmann, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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.




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




The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.






Date: March
      31, 2009
            By:
            /s/ Steven
      HoffmannSteven Hoffmann
              Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief FinancialOfficer
Exhibit 32.1 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.ss.1350, as adopted),
James P. Panek, Chief Executive Officer of VaxGen, Inc. (the Company), and
Matthew J. Pfeffer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certify
that, to the best of their knowledge: 1. The
Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004, to
which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 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. In Witness
Whereof, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 6th day of
February, 2007. /s/ James P.
  Panek

/s/ Matthew
  J. PfefferChief Executive Officer

Chief Financial Officer This
certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated
by reference into any filing of VaxGen, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing. End of
Filing - 1 -
No. 203, Misc.

#### O’Connor *v.*United States.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg*and *Richard W. Schmude*for the United States.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Certiorari denied.
To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:47:01 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I urge you to 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 not, expand the

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

using drugs and devices that can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

Also change 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. Your definition includes churches only, but exempts a host of businesses and organizations

that have conscience objections who will be required to choose between either violating their

conscience or not being able to offer employees health insurance.

I demand that you 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.

If you persist in forcing taxpayers like me without representation and consideration, come November, I'll

do everything in my power to see that you are reduced in size if not removed entirely from govenment.

Sincerely,

Matthew Kramer

Chandler, AZ 85225
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 10

- 00115

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF B .C., C.B. AND M.B., CHILDREN

From the 77th District Court

Limestone County, Texas

Trial Court No. CPS

- 210

- A

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants, B.M. and C. B., each filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s order

terminating their parental rights to their children. Now, both B.M. and C.B. have each

signed and prepared separate notices stating they no longer wish to prosecute the

appeal.

Accordingly, this appeal as to both B .M. and C. B. is dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

.

P. 42.1(a).

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Reyna, and

Justice Davis

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed June 2, 2010

[CV06]
The DJI Inspire 1 manual is too large for upload to regulations.gov. Therefore, if interested, 

please follow the link below to the assembly and operating manual for the sUAS.

http://www.dji.com/product/inspire-1/info#downloads
From: sbeadles@bullingtonfirm.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:06:18 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,

Stephanie Beadles

Roanoke, VA 24019
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 217 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 217

  Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives concerning the 
           50th anniversary of the flooding of Celilo Falls.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 6, 2007

 Mr. Wu submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives concerning the 
           50th anniversary of the flooding of Celilo Falls.

Whereas Celilo Falls, located near The Dalles, Oregon, was a great fishing and 
        trading location for Indian tribes and has been called the ``Wall Street 
        of the West'' by historians;
Whereas artifacts suggest tribes as far as Alaska, the Great Plains and the 
        Southwest United States came to trade and fish at Celilo for over 10,000 
        years;
Whereas the Umatilla, Nez Perce, Yakama and Warm Springs tribes reserved their 
        fishing rights at their usual and accustomed places, including Celilo, 
        when they signed treaties with the United States;
Whereas on March 10, 1957, to provide hydroelectricity and irrigation, The 
        Dalles Dam was constructed;
Whereas the completion of the dam inundated Celilo in six hours, quickly 
        changing the way of life for tribes that fished at Celilo; and
Whereas tribes still live and fish along the river, exercising their treaty 
        rights agreed with the Congress of the United States: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives recognizes the 50th 
anniversary of the flooding of Celilo Falls and the change of life it 
imposed upon tribal peoples.
                                 <all>
```
From: afmcswain@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:36:10 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,

Andrea McSwain

Shelby, NC 28151