alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: paulspink@juno.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:28:50 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,

Paul Spink

Auburn, NY 13021
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

EILEEN VEY,

Petitioner

v.

JERRY TYSKIEWIEZ, DIRECTOR OF 

SERVICES, DEPT. OF REAL ESTATE,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 123 WM 2016

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of January, 2017, the “King’s Bench Matter” is 

DENIED.
r

.- i.

**OFFICE OF**  **THE Al-TORNfiY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS** AUSTIN

Hr. Xarl Caytan 

## aoruty httormy Dnwon 

## coaaty laaeu, Taxa8 Dear 8irr

### 01 Preeeaur4 

### prw1a.0:

undereriy

prwleloa et thle Coda;8hell forthvlth be paid 

### overby the offiodre 

### oolloetlng the Bow te the 0-Q 

### trueurar 91 the 

### prepar wanty after flret 

### dekotlry tham.the lo~l~f*eeald oorrieeloale for eol~eotlng

the -0 Thc~itutee do net prwlde eprUliell7 

### for qmb 8Ituetlo8reprewatea ~De p e r t p 4 a

he . naeEtly he l d a ti e o e t e

o r e o o .ll ee t a d, (o'.fllwt

.t o th+JeyMtlt



## -..+.ena ln the Jaetleooeart the tr1el foe .shel.lba the 81p of #4&o.- I0 vlw of the trhl To* l bove provld~, being 0p e r t

o ft he

l oete e n d

b y rue00 o f r bl e b



### the Juetlee or tb -00.x0

p o d th4r.m a 7 t h 0 uoIptf, it 1 0

0~ vlou 

### thet the 6v.00 In Q~.et100

### rill k pro-reted l

### e la
r lottar411

the baa10 o? $5.00 to tk ownty l 

### ttomeys S.00 to the .eoaeteblo end :4.00 to the oouaty, uhloh,

Ur. Karl Oeytoa,April 3, 1939, Page S
1~eepLasJdu~~~.3md~et~~atearrtbe deller. ?beount7wmla,ofoouree 

### gut It. pre-rekd put 1000 

### l olliulomeye~b&. hny d&e ieee dw 

### the OQOetablewald k figured 0~ the *en beele.

It 18, tlvrefora,the opimlon oi thle Depertwnt that ubem e coarlatlonlo had ia the juitloeooart *ad ooly a pert of the ooete or0 aolleated,that eeld l r r ehwld

k pro-stab betmea the oitloeremd oouaty in tbe OOM pmpertlw a8 to vhloh ueh voirld hare bout urtitl8d to reeelre 

### therefrai had all ooet8 bmn oollooted.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 66489]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4545-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]


Seminole Tribe of Florida; Amendment No. 7 to Notice of a Major 
Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the Seminole Tribe of Florida (FEMA-4545-DR), dated May 8, 2020, 
and related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on June 29, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the 
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Robert D. 
Samaan, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer 
for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Gracia B. Szczech as 
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-20994 Filed 9-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Derrick Deacon, Appellant, v Christopher P. Artuz, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 983]

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), dated January 9, 1995.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, for the procedural reasons stated by Justice Hillery at the Supreme Court. Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION  OF  PERIODIC REPORT

I, Carl Blandino, the Chief Financial Officer of Diligent Board Member Services, Inc., certify, pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to my knowledge:



Dated:
May 19, 2014

/s/ CARL D. BLANDINO Carl D. Blandino Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)


[A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Diligent Board Member Services, Inc. and will be retained by Diligent Board Member
Services, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]

---



QuickLinks
From: copewithit@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:55:19 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,

Janet Cope

Colorado Springs, CO 80906
No. 63782.

protests 58/17708, etc. (New York).

#### Wear Ever Baby Carriage Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In. accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain

items of the merchandise consist of ribbon similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Beer Stern Import Corp.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 294, C.D. 1944), except that the merchandise herein is velvet pile ribbon, wholly or in chief value of cotton, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. VANESSA M AR IA B ISHOP,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-50058

D.C . No. 3:13-c r-00775-JLS M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Ja nis L. Sa m m artino, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 14, 2017 * * B e fore : GOODW IN, FARR IS, a n d FER NANDEZ, C irc uit Judge s. V a n e s s a M a r i a B i s h o p a p p e a l s f r o m t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s o r d e r d e n yi n g h e r
m o t i o n f o r a s e n t e n c e r e d u c t i o n u n d e r 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 )
. W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n
u n d e r 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d w e a f f i r m . 

# FIL ED
FEB 21 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).B ishop c onte nds tha t she is e ntitle d to a

se nte nc e re d

uc tion unde r Am e ndm e nt 782 to the

Se nte nc ing Guide line s. C ontra ry to B ishop’ s c onte ntion, the d istric t c o urt prope rly c a lc ulate d he r a m e nde d Guide line s ra nge without
c onside ring the four-le ve l fa s t-tra c k de pa rture tha t the c o urt gra

nte d at he r origina l
se nte nc ing. Se e U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.10 c m t. n.1(A); Unite d State

s v . Orne las , 825 F.3d 548, 555 (9th C ir. 2016). B e c a use B ishop re c e i ve d a

70-m o nth se nte nc e , whic h is be low the am e nde d

Guide line s ra

nge , the distric t c ourt prope rly de nie d he r m otion for a s e nte nc e re duc tion. Se e U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.10(b)(2)(A) (“ [T] he c ourt sha ll not
re duc e the de fe nda

nt’ s te rm of im prisonm e nt unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3582(c )(2) a nd this polic y sta te m e nt to a te rm

tha t is le ss tha

n the m inim

um of the am e nde d

guide line
ra nge . ” ). AFFIRM E D.

1 6
- 5 0 0 5 8 2
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 283 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
H. RES. 283

  Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit the 
  consideration of conference reports on omnibus appropriation bills.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2007

Mr. Chabot (for himself, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Issa, Mr. Shadegg, 
  Mr. Pence, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Barrett of 
South Carolina, Mr. Walberg, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Brady of Texas, 
   Mrs. Musgrave, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Franks of 
 Arizona, and Mr. Terry) submitted the following resolution; which was 
                   referred to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit the 
  consideration of conference reports on omnibus appropriation bills.

    Resolved, That rule XXII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is amended by adding at the end the following new 
clause:
    ``13. It shall not be in order to consider a conference report 
comprising text that would be within the jurisdiction of more than one 
subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, except for a 
conference report on any measure continuing appropriations or on any 
bill making supplemental appropriations.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION


<PAGE>


                                  Exhibit 32.1



                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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  accompanying  Annual Report on Form 10-K of China Wi-Max
Communications,  Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2008, I, Steven T. Berman,
President and Principal Executive Officer of China Wi-Max Communications,  Inc.,
hereby  certify  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

     a)   such Annual Report on Form 10-K of China Wi-Max  Communications,  Inc.
          for the  year  ended  December  31,  2008,  fully  complies  with  the
          requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
          of 1934; and

     b)   the information  contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K of China
          Wi-Max  Communications,  Inc.  for the year ended  December  31, 2008,
          fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
          results of operations of China Wi-Max Communications, Inc.


Date:  April 13, 2009


                                           /s/ Stephen T. Berman
                                           -----------------------------------
                                           Stephen T. Berman, President
                                           (Principal Executive Officer)


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to China  Wi-Max  Communications,  Inc.  and will be retained by China
Wi-Max  Communications,  Inc.  and  furnished  to the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 368 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                           May 3, 2007.
    Resolved,  That the following named Member be, and is hereby, elected to the 
following standing committee of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on House Administration: Mr. Davis of Alabama.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
From: msmishell7@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:08:28 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,

Michelle Sellers

Poulsbo, WA 98370
|   |
|--------|

**Filed      Pursuant To Rule 433, Registration No. 333-124310**
** **

**$1,000,000,000**

**CATERPILLAR      FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION**

| **For                the Period: 8/7/2006 to 8/14/2006** |
|----------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                     |

| **Coupon** | **Interest**                       | **Maturity** | **Callable**     | **Survivor's****Option** | **Price****1** | **Yield****2** | **Moody's** | **S&P** | **CUSIP** |
|------------|------------------------------------|--------------|------------------|--------------------------|----------------|----------------|-------------|-------------|-----------|
| 5.150%     | Semi-Annual(†††) | 8/15/09      | NO               | YES§           | 100.00         | 5.150%         | A2          | A           | 14911Q4Q1 |
| 5.750%     | Monthly(†)                   | 8/15/16      | 8/15/08*    | YES§           | 100.00         | 5.819%         | A2          | A           | 14911Q4R9 |
| 6.000%     | Semi-Annual(†††) | 8/15/21      | 8/15/09***  | YES§           | 100.00         | 6.000%         | A2          | A           | 14911Q4S7 |
| 6.000%     | Monthly(†)                   | 8/15/26      | 8/15/10*    | YES§           | 100.00         | 6.075%         | A2          | A           | 14911Q4T5 |

*All      offerings are subject to prior sale.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DATED AS OF JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             350
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,878
<ALLOWANCES>                                       616
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,576
<PP&E>                                             554
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,389
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,055
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,071
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        328
<COMMON>                                           394
<OTHER-SE>                                    (10,784)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,005
<SALES>                                         11,601
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,601
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,398
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,651
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 522
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     30
<INCOME-TAX>                                        35
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (5)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (5)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 28 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 28

To institute a reconciliation rule in the House of Representatives for 
                          the 110th Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2007

 Mr. Spratt submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
the Committee on Rules, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, 
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 
for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of 
                        the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To institute a reconciliation rule in the House of Representatives for 
                          the 110th Congress.

    Resolved,  That it shall not be in order to consider a concurrent 
resolution on the budget, or an amendment thereto or a conference 
report thereon, that contains reconciliation directives under section 
310 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 that specify changes in law 
reducing the surplus or increasing the deficit for either the period 
comprising the current fiscal year and the five fiscal years beginning 
with the fiscal year that ends in the following calendar year or the 
period comprising the current fiscal year and the ten fiscal years 
beginning with the fiscal year that ends in the following calendar 
year. In determining whether reconciliation directives specify changes 
in law reducing the surplus or increasing the deficit, the sum of the 
directives for each reconciliation bill (under section 310 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974) envisioned by that measure shall be 
evaluated.
                                 <all>
```