alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: prwestmark@wisc.edu

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:40:54 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. No insurance plan should be allowed to cover the voluntary use of

contraceptives or sterilizations. Rather people should learn personal responsibility. Pro-choice should

mean that women have the right to choose not to engage in activities that they are not willing to accept

responsibility for. It should not mean that they have the right to choose to murder an innocent human

life by using contraceptives. Promoting promiscuous behavior only leads to the downfall of societies,

which the HHS should not be involved in. 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 and which are a mortal sin. 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,

Pamela Westmark

Madison, WI 53711
From: thomas.m.johnson@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:47:56 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,

Thomas Johnson

New Albany, OH 43054
From: fancieleigh@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:19:04 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,

Sherri Stevens

Masontown, WV 26542
From: johnmcnulty165@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:17:31 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,

John McNulty

Martinsburg, WV 25404
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
FOR QUARTER ENDED 09/30/2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                       1,000

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                               JUL-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                 SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             1,268
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     96,098
<ALLOWANCES>                                      27,080
<INVENTORY>                                      111,669
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 192,552
<PP&E>                                            33,664
<DEPRECIATION>                                    12,040
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   381,273
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            267,029
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                              68
<OTHER-SE>                                       110,382
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     381,273
<SALES>                                          122,905
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 126,536
<CGS>                                             90,788
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     30,457
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     815
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 6,862
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (2,386)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       2,948
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (5,334)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (5,334)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.78)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.78)


</TABLE>
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax Credit Fund VI, L.P., Series 5 (the “Partnership”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 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, Melanie R. Wenk, Vice President - Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., 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/MELANIE R. WENK


Melanie R. Wenk


Vice President-Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.





Date: November 2, 2010
From: hammondlorri@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:33:29 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,

Lorri Hammond

Anderson, SC 29623
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 on Form 10-Q of BJs Wholesale Club, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended August 4, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, Herbert J Zarkin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the undersigneds 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: September 12, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ HERBERT J ZARKIN                                   
|                          |  |  |  | Herbert J Zarkin                                       
|                          |  |  |  | Chairman of the Board President Chief Executive Officer
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Joel Ramirez

, * From the 35th District

Court of Brown County,

Trial Court No. CR20713

.

Vs. No. 11

- 11

- 00 077

- CR * February 7, 2013

State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by McCall, J.

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Willson , J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no error in

the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion, the judgment of the

trial court is in all things affirmed.
IV 

House Calendar No. 33 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 269 

[Report No. 110–73] 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 835) to reauthorize the programs 

of the Department of Housing and Urban Development for housing 

assistance for Native Hawaiians. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 26, 2007 

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered 

to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 835) to reauthorize the programs of the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development for housing assistance for Native 

Hawaiians. 

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution 

2 it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

3 835) to reauthorize the programs of the Department of 

4 Housing and Urban Development for housing assistance 

5 for Native Hawaiians. All points of order against the bill 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

HRES 269 RH 

1 and its consideration are waived except those arising 

2 under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be consid3 ered as read. The previous question shall be considered 

4 as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening 

5 motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 

6 controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 

7 of the Committee on Financial Services; and (2) one mo8 tion to recommit with or without instructions. 

9 SEC. 2. During consideration of H.R. 835 pursuant 

10 to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the 

11 previous question, the Chair may postpone further consid12 eration of the bill to such time as may be designated by 

13 the Speaker. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

House Calendar No. 33 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 269 

[Report No. 110

–73] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 835) 

assistance for Native Hawaiians. of Housing and Urban Development for housing to reauthorize the programs of the Department 

MARCH 26, 2007 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
#### Kevin L. CHOICE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUMTER COUNTY CORRECTIONAL CENTER; Simon Major, Director of the Jail, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-6184.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2001.

Decided April 18, 2001.

Kevin L. Choice, pro se. John Evans James, III, Richardson *&*James, Sumter, SC, for appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Kevin L. Choice appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Choice v. Sumter County Corr. Ctr.,*No. CA-99-1860-0-18BD (D.S.C. filed Jan. 4, 2001; entered Jan. 5, 2001). 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.*
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-19-00262-CR 

BILLY SMART, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 251st District Court 

Potter County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 75,720-B, Honorable Richard Dambold, Presiding 

 

August 16, 2019 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before CAMPBELL and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ. 

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Billy Smart was convicted of 

possession of a deadly weapon in a penal institution1 and sentenced to six years’ 

confinement. Appellant has filed a notice of appeal, pro se, challenging the conviction. 

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

1 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 46.10 (West 2011).
2

The timely filing of a written notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite to 

hearing an appeal. Castillo v. State, 369 S.W.3d 196, 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). In a 

criminal case, the notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after sentence is 

imposed or within ninety days after sentence is imposed if the defendant timely files a 

motion for new trial. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a). We may extend the deadline to file a notice 

of appeal if, within fifteen days of the deadline, the appellant files a notice of appeal and 

a motion for an extension of time. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. If a notice of appeal is not timely 

filed, we have no option but to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Castillo, 369 

S.W.3d at 198.

Appellant was sentenced on April 25, 2019. Because no motion for new trial was 

filed, his notice of appeal was due within thirty days of sentencing, by May 28, 2019. TEX.

R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1), 4.1(a). Appellant did not file a notice of appeal until July 19, 2019.

By letter dated July 23, 2019, this Court notified appellant that the notice of appeal 

appeared to have been filed untimely and directed appellant to show why the Court has 

jurisdiction by August 6. Appellant has not responded to the Court’s letter to date.

Because appellant’s untimely filed notice of appeal prevents this Court from 

acquiring jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

2

Per Curiam

Do not publish.

2 Further, the trial court’s certification of appellant’s right of appeal indicates that appellant has 

waived the right of appeal. We are required by Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d) to dismiss an appeal 

“if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.”