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

[House Report 107-683]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     107-683

======================================================================

 
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4691, ABORTION NON-DISCRIMINATION 
                              ACT OF 2002

                                _______
                                

 September 24, 2002.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

   Mrs. Myrick, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 546]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 546, by a record vote of 7 to 3, report the 
same to the House with the recommendation that the resolution 
be adopted.

                SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

    The resolution provides for consideration in the House of 
H.R. 4691, the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2002, under a 
closed rule. The rule provides one hour of debate equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The rule 
provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

                            COMMITTEE VOTES

    Pursuant to clause 3(b) of House rule XIII the results of 
each record vote on an amendment or motion to report, together 
with the names of those voting for and against, are printed 
below:

Rules Committee Record Vote No. 171

    Date: September 24, 2002.
    Measure: H.R. 4691.
    Motion by: Mrs. Slaughter.
    Summary of motion: To make in order and grant the 
appropriate waivers to the DeGette amendment, which assures 
that the bill is not construed to limit the information or 
services a healthcare professional can provide to their 
patients nor construed to limit state authority to regulate in 
this area.
    Results: Defeated 3 to 7.
    Vote by Members: Linder--Nay; Pryce--Nay; Diaz-Balart--Nay; 
Myrick--Nay; Sessions--Nay; Reynolds--Nay; Slaughter--Yea; 
McGovern--Yea; Hastings (FL)--Yea; Dreier--Nay.

Rules Committee Record Vote No. 172

    Date: September 24, 2002.
    Measure: H.R. 4691.
    Motion by: Mr. Linder.
    Summary of motion: To report the resolution.
    Results: Agreed to 7 to 3.
    Vote by Members: Linder--Yea; Pryce--Yea; Diaz-Balart--Yea; 
Myrick--Yea; Sessions--Yea; Reynolds--Yea; Slaughter--Nay; 
McGovern--Nay; Hastings (FL)--Nay; Dreier--Yea.

                                

```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rafael Alexander McLEAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-4904.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 21, 2001.

Decided June 27, 2001.

*96Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, NC, for appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Mary Jude Darrow, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, NC, for appellee.

Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Following his conviction and sentence for unlawful possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g) (West 2000), Rafael A. McLean appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to suppress evidence of his possession of a firearm. He contends that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop him, and therefore the discovery of the gun was in violation of the Fourth Amendment. We have reviewed the record on appeal and the parties’ briefs and find no reversible error. *See United States v.. Sokolow,*490 U.S. 1, 9, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying McLean’s motion to suppress. 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
July 22, 1958

No. 62208.

#### John A. Steer Co. *v.*United States,

protest 286080-K.

Abstract 62079. Motion of Government for rehearing denied.
No. 65137.

#### Beer Stern Import Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 281698-K, etc. (New York).

*331Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issue is the same in all material respects as that the subject of *United States*v. *Sternberg Bros.*(47 C.C.P.A. 47, C.A.D. 727), and the record showing that the merchandise consists of nylon ribbons similar in use to fabrics with fast edges, wholly or in chief value of silk, the claim, of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 62214.

#### Bonniers, Inc., and Fabry Associates, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 318089-K and 319685-K (A) (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of chairs similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Davies Turner & Co.*v. *United States*(45 C. C. P. A. 39, C. A. D. 669), the claims of the plaintiffs were sustained at the rate of 20 or 19 percent, according to the date of entry or withdrawal from warehouse.
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/A for the year ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Sean P. McGrath, Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner, 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. |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|                                                |
|------------------------------------------------|
| /s/ SEAN P. MCGRATH                            |
| Sean P. McGrath                                |
| Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner |
| September 11, 2015                             |
# Jf**ourtl) Court** **of gntonto,** **August 16,** **2013**

### No.04-ll-00677-CV**SMOOTH SOLUTIONS** **LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,** **Appellant v.** 

### LIGHT**AGE, INC.,** **Appellee From** **the 37th** **Judicial District** **Court, Bexar** **County, Texas** **Trial Court** **No. 2005-CI-13168** **Honorable David** **A. Berchelmann,** **Jr., Judge** **Presiding**

### ORDER**The Appellee's** **Motion for** **Extension of** **Time to** **File Motion** **for Rehearing** **is GRANTED.** 

## U/ttdA**Marialyo BarnAfd,** **Justice**

### IN**WITNESS WHEREOF,** **have hereunto** **set my** **hand and** **affixed the** **seal of** **the said** **court on** **this 16th** **day of** **August, 2013.** **Keit Clerk** **of Court**
From: flgasva@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:10:55 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,

Gerold Smith

Monterey, VA 24465
Exhibit 31.1






Credex Corporation


Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)


Section 302 Certification






I, Arunkumar Rajapandy, the Chief Executive Officer of Credex Corporation, certify that:




1.      I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Credex Corporation;




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, the results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;




4.      The issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining 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 for the issuer and have:




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




(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the issuer's disclosure 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; and




(c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and




5.      The issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):




(a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the issuer'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 issuer's internal control over financial reporting.




Date: April 19, 2012






Credex Corporation




By: __/S/ Arunkumar Rajapandy


Arunkumar Rajapandy,


Chief Executive Officer
From: paxsand@nc.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:22:01 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,

Linda Saunders

Holly Springs, NC 27540
From: nospam@jeffvandorp.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:37:25 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,

Amy VanDorp

Grand Rapids, MI 49508
From: mariapeceli@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:09:25 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,

Maria Peceli

Sacramento, CA 95834
From: beknaup@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:46:10 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,

Ed & Beth Knaup

, 95628-2709
Exhibit 32.01

                            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 The Players  Network (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on November ____, 2004  ("Report"),  the
undersigned,  in the capacity and on the date indicated below,  hereby certifies
pursuant  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:

         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.

Dated: November ____, 2004                  /s/ Mark Bradley
                                            -----------------------
                                            Mark Bradley
                                            Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>

                            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 The Players  Network (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on November ____, 2004  ("Report"),  the
undersigned,  in the capacity and on the date indicated below,  hereby certifies
pursuant  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:

         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.

Dated: November ____, 2004                  /s/ Seth Horn
                                            ------------------------
                                            Seth Horn
                                            Chief Financial Officer
No. 66464.

#### Albert Fahner *v.*United States,

protest 60/28276(A) (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of nylon yarn similar in use to thrown silk not more advanced than singles, tram, or organzine and following the principles set forth in *United States*v. *Steinberg Bros.*(47 C.C.P.A. 47, C.A.D. 727), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.