alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The State of New Hampshire DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

Thomas S. Burack, Commissioner CERTIFICATION OF PUBLIC PROCESS I hereby certify that: In accordance with N

.H. Admin. Rule Env-A204.01(b) and 40 CFR § 51 .102, public notice was given that the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Air Resources Division (DES), intended to submit for the approval of the U .S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revisions to the New Hampshire State Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning rule Env-A 1204: Volatile Organic Compounds Reasonably Available Control Technology (VOC RACT) . The revisions included : (1) restructuring PART Env-A 1204 to become Chapter Env-A 1200 ; and (2) incorporating 9 control technique guidelines (CTGs) issued by EPA in 2006-2008, which include paper, fabric, film, and foil substrates coatings, metal furniture coating, miscellaneous metal parts and products coating, miscellaneous plastic parts and products coating, flat wood paneling coating, flexible package printing, offset lithographic and letterpress printing, fiberglass boat manufacturing materials, miscellaneous industrial adhesives, and industrial cleaning solvents. A public hearing on the Rules and the SIP revision was held on April 1, 2011 at 10:00 a.m ., at the offices of DES, Rooms 111-113, 29 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH . Opportunity was provided to receive oral comments during the hearing, and written comments at any time fromMarch 1, 2011, up to 4:00 p.m . on Monday, April 11, 2011, for consideration by DES in making a final decision. Two members of the public appeared for the hearing and a tape recording of the hearing was made. It is available at the DES offices for review . Acopy of the SIP revision was available for public inspection at the DES offices during regular working hours from8:00 a.m . to 4:00 p.m

., Monday through Friday, throughout the comment period. The SIPrevision was also available for downloading fromthe DES website at: http://des nhgo~--v/organization/commissioner/legal/rulemaking/index .htm . The public hearing notice was published in the Union Leader, a newspaper of general, statewide circulation, on Tuesday, March 1, 2011, more than thirty days prior to the date of the hearing. The above statements are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. 1~obert R

. Scott Director, Air Resources Division 

## /2 TuL l( Date

DESWeb site: www

.des.nh.gov P .O . Box 95, 29 Hazen Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03302-0095 Telephone: (603) 271-1370 " Fax: (603) 271-1381 " TDDAccess: Relay NH 1-800-735-2964
From: gjadkins@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:40:31 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 adkins

Shelby, OH 44875
From: dasd11@lycos.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:38:57 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to demand you rescind the ill-advised decision to mandate that all "contraceptives" and

sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance with no co-pay to patients. You must

also 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,

R.E. Aviles

Redlands, CA 92374
Exhibit 23.1  Chang G. Park, CPA, Ph. D. t2667 CAMINO DEL RIO SOUTH PLAZA BtSAN DIEGOtCALIFORNIA 92108-3707t tTELEPHONE (858)722-5953tFAX (858) 761-0341tFAX (858) 433-2979 tE-MAILchanggpark@gmail.comt       February 11, 2009   To Whom It May Concern:  The firm of Chang G. Park, CPA consents to the inclusion of our report of February 9, 2009 on the audited financial statements of Secure Window Blinds, Inc. as of December, 2008 and 2007, in any filings that are necessary now or in the near future with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.    Very truly yours,  /s/Chang G. Park ____________________________ Chang G. Park, CPA San Diego, CA
Before the Second Division,

February 16, 1967

No. P67/36.

#### Getz Bros. & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/192755, etc. (New York).

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of brass duo sink strainers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Davies, Turner*& *Company*v. *United States*(55 Cust. Ct. 488, Abstract 69651), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### George Barkley, Respondent, v. The Rensselaer and Saratoga Railroad Company, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Bockes, J.
From: orb1025@clearwire.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:46:33 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,

Randy Brown

Jacksonville, FL 32207
No. 281, Misc.

#### Taylor *v.*United States.

*C. J. Gates*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Cox, Acting Assistant Attorney General Jones*and *Joseph M. Howard*for the United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                MARWICH II, LTD.
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

     In connection with the Annual Report of Marwich II, Ltd. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter
Porath, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 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.


/s/ Peter Porath
Peter Porath

Vice President, Chief Executive Officer
May 5, 2006



                                       13
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 60747 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
CECIL PIERRE, also known as Cecile C. Pierre, Jr. , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 2:14

- CR

- 2

- 1

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Cecil Pierre appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. Pierre argues that the district court’s decision to order the revocation sentences to run consecutively rather than concurrently resulted in a “substan tively unr easonable” sentence. Ordinarily, revocation sentences are reviewed under the “plainly unreasonable” standard. United States v. Miller , 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 8, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-60747 Document: 00513627248 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/08/2016No. 15

- 60747

2 2011). Although Pierre requested, prior to sentencing, that the district court run his revo cation sentences concurrently, he did not object to the reasonableness of the consecutive sentence ultimately imposed. Because Pierre did not object to the substantive reasonableness of the sentence before the district court, his present challenge to his sentence is reviewed for plain

error. See United States v. Whitelaw , 580 F.3d 256, 260 (5th Cir. 2009). On revocation of supervised release, the district court may impose any sentence that falls within the statutory maximum term authorized. United States v. McKinney , 520 F.3d 425, 427 (5th Cir. 2008). While the 42

- month total sentence exceeded the advisory range under the Sentencing G uidelines, it was within the statutory maximum

. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Revo cation sentences exceeding the G uideline s range but not exceeding the statutory maximum have been upheld as a matter of routine against challenges that the sentences were substantively unreasonable. See Whitelaw , 580 F.3d at 2 65 (affirming 36

- mon th sentence where the advisory G uidelines range was 4

- 10 months and citing similar cases). As the sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum, it did not constitute plain error. See id. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 15-60747 Document: 00513627248 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/08/2016
Case No. 14,177.

#### TRIPLET v. WARFIELD.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 237.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

April Term. 1821.

Pleading at Law — Variance.

The defendant cannot take advantage of a variance between the writ and declaration, by demurrer, without praying oyer of the writ.

Tne capias issued in trespass on the case. The declaration was in trespass vi et armis for breaking the plaintiff’s lamp. The defendant demurred generally to the declaration, without praying oyer of the writ.

THE COURT,

after taking time to consider, rendered judgment upon the demurrer, for the plaintiff. See 1 Chit. Pl. 438. 439; Hole v. Finch, 2 Wils. 394; Oakley v. Giles, 3 East, 167; Gray v. Sidneff, 3 Bos. & P. 399; Murray v. Hubbart, 1 Bos. & P. 645; 1 Chit. Pl. 209, 249, 254; Spalding v. Mure, 6 Term R. 363.
EXHIBIT 31(a) 

I, Eric Montandon, chief executiveofficer of WWA Group, Inc. (“Registrant”) certify that: 

1.              I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB (“Report”) of          Registrant; 

2.              Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a          material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements          made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not          misleading with respect to the period covered by this Report; 

3.              Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information          included in this Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial          condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and          for, the period presented in this Report; 

4.              I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and          procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the          Registrant and have: 

a)              Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure          controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that          material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated          subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly          during the period in which this Report is being prepared; 

b)              Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and          procedures and presented in this Report my conclusions about the effectiveness          of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered          by this Report based on such evaluation; and 

c)              Disclosed in this Report any change in the Registrant’s internal control          over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent          fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual          report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially          affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5.              I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the Registrant’s          auditors and the audit committee of Registrant’s board of directors (or          persons performing the equivalent functions): 

a)              All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation          of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to          adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and          report financial information; and 

b)              Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees          who have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal controls over          financial reporting. 

Date: August 18, 2005 

/s/ Eric Montandon 

Eric Montandon
From: sandrabryson@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:04:30 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,

Sandra Bryson

Candler, NC 28715
No. 60493.

#### Arkwright Accessories, Inc., and V. T. Mancusi et al. *v.*United States,

protests 271231-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silk scarves or squares similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Specialty House, Inc., Bryant & Heffernan, Inc., et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 136, C. A. D. 585), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: dnwmurdoch@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44 Concious Protections are needed

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:52:54 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,

Dan Murdoch

Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
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 of Smith Barney Westport Futures Fund L.P. (the ‘‘Partnership’’) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Jerry Pascucci, President and Director of Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, 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 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.

/s/ Jerry Pascucci

|  |
|--|
|  |  |
|  |

Jerry PascucciCitigroup Managed Futures LLC President and Director     Date: May 14, 2007

----