alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Kathy McCoy

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Women"s Health Care

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 10:29:00 PM

Oh my gosh! It is about time this nation woke up and understood that contraceptive services

are as much a part of normal women’s health care. Women shouldn’t have to worry about

their employer’s religious orientation interfering with their need to prevent pregnancy. Please

note, 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.

Kathleen McCoy
From: rzahn43@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:54:10 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,

Richard Zahn

Grand Rapids, MI 49546
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





Eran
Gronich the Principal Accounting  Officer,
Secretary  and Director of The Mobile Star Corp , certifies, under the
standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his
knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Registrant for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in
that Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and  results of operations of the Registrant.





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





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




Date:
      September 27, 2010
            The
      Mobile Star Corp .By:
            /s/Eran GronichName:Eran
      Gronich
              Title:    Principal Accounting
       Officer,
  Secretary  and  Director





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Searched for **https://www.ftc.gov/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://www.ftc.gov/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
Exhibit 32.02

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 March 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark S. Frey, Chief Financial 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. Frey       
|Mark S. Frey           
|Chief Financial Officer
|May 9, 2008
From: sbigo67@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:29:51 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,

Betty Igo

Glenolden, PA 19036
From: GLAyers@avon-schools.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:52:03 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Gary Ayers

Danville, IN 46122
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





In
connection with the Annual Report of Atlas Resources Public 18-2008 (A) L.P.
(the "Partnership") 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, Matthew A. Jones, Chief Financial Officer of the MGP, 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
      Partnership.





By:
            /s/ Matthew A.
      JonesName:
            Matthew
      A. JonesTitle:
            Chief
      Financial Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
            March
      30, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                      5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS


<S>                                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                                 JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                                   SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                          1
<CASH>                                                               3,661
<SECURITIES>                                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                       29,263
<ALLOWANCES>                                                          (846)
<INVENTORY>                                                          1,885
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                    41,181
<PP&E>                                                             288,973
<DEPRECIATION>                                                      97,951
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                     305,101
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                               34,633
<BONDS>                                                            188,507
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                                              0
<COMMON>                                                            37,058
<OTHER-SE>                                                          28,421
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                       305,101
<SALES>                                                             62,766
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                    62,766
<CGS>                                                               39,417
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                       56,504
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                   3,403
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                      2,884
<INCOME-TAX>                                                         1,154
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                                         1,730
<EPS-BASIC>                                                           0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                         0.13


</TABLE>
---

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 
  PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Daniel Hunter, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
  Officer of Encore Clean Energy, Inc. (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, to the best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company,
        for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2004, and to which this certification
        is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
        of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
        and
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
        in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
        of the Company.                                                                                                                                                              

| | By:    | /s/ Daniel
      Hunter                             
| | ------ | ----------------------------------------------------
| |        |                                                     
| | Name:  | DANIEL HUNTER                                       
| |        |                                                     
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer and Chief  Financial Officer
| |        |                                                     
| | Date:  | June 15, 2004                                       



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-QSB 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 the Company under
  the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
  before or after the date of the Form 10-QSB), irrespective of any general incorporation
  language contained in such filing.

---
Before the Third Division,

September 18, 1962

No. 67052.

protest 59/18764 (New York).

#### Reliance Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of earthenware eggeups similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Ross Products, Inc.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 8, C.D. 2226), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### BEARDSLEY v. CITY OF LAMPASAS.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

November 23, 1903.)

No. 1,260.

In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Texas.

Ben B. Cain and J. C. Chamberlain, for plaintiff in error. Robt. G. West, Tbos. B. Cochran, and Walter Acker, for defendant in error.

Before PARDEE, McCORMICK, and SHELBY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.
From: lutracary@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:42:30 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,

Cary Roach

Hanford, CA 93230
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Miranda, Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 840]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Felice Shea, J.), rendered October 1, 1993, convicting defendant, after nonjury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fourth degrees and sentencing him to concurrent terms of *4xh to 9*years and 3 to 6 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and giving them the benefit of every reasonable inference (P*eople v Malizia,*62 NY2d 755*cert denied*469 US 932), the People’s evidence established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant knowingly exercised dominion and control over the cocaine recovered from the small, one-bedroom apartment defendant fled as the police were about to execute a search warrant. Based upon the People’s proof that the cocaine was found in open view in a bedroom with an open door that was visible from other areas of the apartment, and that cocaine was next to a table containing an Ohaus scale, wrapping materials and a calculator—equipment used in preparing narcotics for sale— the trier of fact properly applied the "drug factory” presumption (Penal Law § 220.25 [2]) in concluding that defendant constructively possessed the illegal narcotics in the apartment. Defendant was in "close proximity” to the narcotics, as required by the statute, despite his attempt to flee the apartment and the police *(People v Maldonado,*189 AD2d 737, *Iv denied*81 NY2d 1016; *People v Chandler,*121 AD2d 644, *Iv denied*68 NY2d 913).

Defendant’s argument that the People failed to prove his knowledge of the weight of the drugs in his possession as required by *People v Ryan*(82 NY2d 497) is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law since defendant did not raise a specific objection on this ground below *(People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10), and we decline to review the issue in the interest of justice. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.