alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: mike421@atlanticbb.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:58:33 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,

arlene king

Queenstown, MD 21658
No. 103, Misc.

#### Drake *v.*North Carolina.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Thomas Wade Bruton,*Attorney General of North Carolina, and *Ralph Moody,*Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Supreme Court of North Carolina. Certiorari denied.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION**

**REQUIRED BY RULES 13A-14 AND 15D-14 UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE**

**ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED**

I, J. Michael French, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Marina Biotech, Inc.; 

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 circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on myknowledge, 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 periodspresented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and wehave: 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared; 

b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance withgenerally accepted accounting principles; 

c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our 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; 

d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control 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, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date:March 23, 2011
Before the Second Division,

January 10, 1967

No. P67/8.

#### March & Mendl, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 63/22552, etc. (New York).

*859Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of twill-backed velveteens similar in all material respects, including waterproofing, to the velveteen cloth the subject of *Amity*Fabrics, *Inc.*v. *United States*(51 Cust. Ct. 97, C.D. 2416), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EXHIBIT 99.1


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

     In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax
Credit VI, L.P., Series 6 (the "Partnership") for the period ended September 30,
2002 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof
(the "Report"),  and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  I,  Wilfred N.  Cooper,  Jr.,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates,  Inc., general partner
of the general partner of the Partnership, hereby certify that:

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

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


/s/WILFRED N. COOPER, Jr.
-------------------------
Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.
December 4, 2002




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

     In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax
Credit VI, L.P., Series 6 (the "Partnership") for the period ended September 30,
2002 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof
(the "Report"),  and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  I,  Thomas  J.  Riha,  Chief
Financial  Officer of WNC &  Associates,  Inc.,  general  partner of the general
partner of the Partnership, hereby certify that:

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

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


/s/THOMAS J. RIHA
-----------------
Thomas J. Riha
Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.
December 4, 2002
From: lfitz@sprynet.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:51:54 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,

Alfred Fitzgerald

Germantown, TN 38138
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

__________ ______________ No. 14

- 10171 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D. C. Docket No. 1:13

- cr - 00122

- WS

- C

- 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus MICHAEL ALAN DICKENS, Defendant

- Appellant.

__________________ ______ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama

________________________ (March 13, 2015) Before MARCUS, JULIE CARNE S and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM : Brandy Hambright, appointed counsel for Michael Dickens, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and has filed a brief pursuant

Case: 14-10171 Date Filed: 03/13/2015 Page: 1 of 22 to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel = s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel = s motion to withdraw is GRANTED , and Dickens’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

Case: 14-10171 Date Filed: 03/13/2015 Page: 2 of 2
BOOLE & BABBAGE, INC.

                                  Exhibit 11.1

                 SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                      (in thousands, except per share data)


                                                     Years ended September 30,
                                                    ---------------------------
                                                    1996       1995        1994
                                                    ----       ----        ----
PRIMARY
   Weighted average number of common
      shares outstanding during the year            16,571     15,883     15,052
   Incremental common shares attributable
      to exercise of outstanding options
      (assuming proceeds would be used to
      purchase treasury stock)                       1,499      1,442      1,148
                                                   -------    -------    -------
Total shares(a)                                     18,070     17,325     16,200
                                                   =======    =======    =======

Net income                                         $18,040    $13,948    $ 7,946
                                                   =======    =======    =======

Net income per share(a)                            $  1.00    $  0.81    $  0.49
                                                   =======    =======    =======

FULLY DILUTED
   Weighted average number of common
      shares outstanding during the year            16,571     15,883     15,052
   Incremental common shares attributable
      to exercise of outstanding options
      (assuming proceeds would be used to
      purchase treasury stock)                       1,554      1,542      1,343
                                                   -------    -------    -------
Total shares(a)                                     18,125     17,425     16.395
                                                   =======    =======    =======

Net income                                         $18,040    $13,948    $ 7,946
                                                   =======    =======    =======

Net income per share(a)                            $  1.00    $  0.80    $  0.48
                                                   =======    =======    =======


(a) Per share data and number of shares  reflect a 3-for-2 split to be effective
    on December 10, 1996.


                                       14
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1471 

Honoring the 50th anniversary of the successful demonstration of the first 

integrated circuit and its impact on the electronics industry. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2008 

Mr. HALL of Texas submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on Science and Technology 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2008 

The Committee on Science and Technology discharged; considered and agreed 

to 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring the 50th anniversary of the successful demonstration of the first integrated circuit and its impact on 

the electronics industry. 

Whereas in May 1958 Jack St. Clair Kilby joined Texas Instruments because it was the only company that would 

permit him to work full-time on miniaturization of electronics; 

Whereas just four months later on September 12, 1958, Jack 

Kilby demonstrated the first integrated circuit by combining a transistor, several resistors, and a capacitor on 

a half inch piece of germanium in an attempt to reduce 

transistor costs; 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1471 ATH 

Whereas Jack Kilby spent his career at Texas Instruments, 

a productive engineering career that resulted in over 60 

patents and seminal inventions, including the electronic 

calculator; 

Whereas Jack Kilby received the National Medal of Science 

in 1969 and the National Medal of Technology in 1990, 

and shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2000, for his 

invention of and contributions to the development of the 

integrated circuit; 

Whereas during Kilby’s lifetime integrated circuits provided 

a million fold decrease in the costs of electronics; 

Whereas Kilby’s achievement revolutionized electronics and 

permitted it to grow to over $1,500,000,000,000 in annual sales world wide; 

Whereas the integrated circuit revolutionized computing and 

made possible getting a man to the moon and modern 

space exploration; 

Whereas the integrated circuit led to a revolution in communications, transportation, and medical industries; and 

Whereas the future will inevitably bring equally far-reaching 

integrated circuit-based advances in many fields: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes and honors the research and de3 velopment efforts of Jack Kilby and his contem4 poraries, who by inventing and perfecting the inte5 grated circuit brought us modern electronics and 

6 changed the world; and 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 1471 ATH 

1 (2) recognizes the importance of continued ad2 vancements in electronics to the well-being of Amer3 ica. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Roland MARTIN, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-6323.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 3, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 17, 2005.

*171Roland Martin, Jr., Appellant pro se. David Ira Salem, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Roland Martin, Jr., a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as untimely filed. This order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); *see Reid v. Angelone,*369 F.3d 363, 368-69, 374 n. 7 (4th Cir.2004). A certificate of appealability mil not issue absent “a substantial shoving of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel, 529*U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee, 252*F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Martin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
Before the First Division,

February 1, 1967

No. P67/27.

#### Kaplan-Gordon Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 65/14847, etc. (New York).

Bao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of rush bags similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Carson M. Simon & Co.*v. *United States*(55 Cust. Ct. 103, C.D. 2558), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
July 20, 2015

Mr. Phillip Madison

208 Anita Drive

Paducah, KY 42003

Dear Mr. Madison:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your May 26, 2015 exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

1921), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.
2

Sincerely,

/s/ Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
442728 © 58 - (In pocket)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

1
Pr
nT
NESNESG SEC. 22, T.15 N., R.3 W.

5
SELBURI-WASHINGTON lL CORP.
NESE SEC. 29, T. 13 H., RW.

Miles

INTERPRETATION OF LOGS AND CORRELATION OF DEEP TEST HOLES DRILLED IN OR ADJACENT TO THE CENTRALIA-CHEHALIS DISTRICT, WASHINGTON

Oil Corp. Wulz 1 ae largely interpreted from electric logs,

and from widely spaced core samples,

Lincoln formation of Weaver
4
‘SALZER VALLEY PROSPECTING CO.
SALER 1
SEANEN SEC. 22,14 N., R.2W.
Depth 1003"
. 7
Depth 1600' CRESCENT OIL CO.
‘SWSEN SEC. 32, T. 16 N., R20.
2 nd
CHEHALIS 1
NWSE SEC. 17, T. 14 N, R.3 W.
6
Depth 1050" UNION OIL CO.
BANNSE 1
NEVE SEC. 22, 1.15 N., R.2W.
Base of Skookumchuck , formation a
S beptn 2032"
Base of Northcraft formation
3 depth 2990"
EXPLANATION = depth 1390°
RaW. RaW, RIW.
a ie
Ja
1. i. 5
1
N roe
‘Tenino Depth 4330"
US
Shale
QP mete Vertical sale
1000
1. 1 G ip
15 2 4
a aa ee ee ee Carbonaceous shale
LEWIS CO | g00
+600
‘CENTRALIA
3
LO \ _ .
1“ 4
N
on
CHEHALIS [200
Basalt flows E
Ter Co
Massive igneous rock
1.
Ey nd
No data
+s
INDEX MAP
ithologc units in Union Oil Co. Bannse 1 and Selbura Washington

HERCULES SAnosn TONE CO.
NE} SEC. 20, 7.16 N., R.1W.

BULLETIN 1053 PLATE 4
9
10
MOTTMAH-CAMPBELL 1
SEN SEC. 12,716 NR2W.
nd
Depth 1180"
W
eek eT
SWHNEN SEC. 10, 1.16 N., 1M
Base of Mcintosh formation
Middle Eocene volcanic rocks
Depth 2760°
From: tnllewis@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:55:49 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to demand, as a US Citizen, 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 (That I and my family have to pay for) 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,

Terry Lewis

Tampa, FL 33647