alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 23.1











De Joya Griffith & Company, LLC
 
 CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS & CONSULTANTS








September 21, 2010
     
 
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 
 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
 Washington, DC 20549
 
 
 Ladies and Gentlemen:
 
 We hereby consent to the incorporation and use in this Annual Report (Form 10-K ) of Crater Mountain Resources, Inc. of our audit report, dated September 9, 2010 relating to the accompanying audited financial statements (and related statements included there in) as of June 30, 2010 which appears in the Annual Report.
 
 
 
 De Joya Griffith & Company, LLC
 
 /s/ De Joya Griffith & Company, LLC
 Henderson, NV
 September 21, 2010






2580 Anthem Village Drive, Henderson, NV  89052
 Telephone (702) 588-5960  ●  Facsimile (702) 588-5979
From: mallenunited@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:27:50 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,

Monroe Allen

Smyrna, GA 30082
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 11-40531 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JONATHAN RAY DEAN, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:09-CR-63-1
Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jonathan Ray Dean pleaded guilty of possession with intent to distribute cocaine. He was sentenced as a career offender to a 188-month term of impri s o n m e nt a nd to a four-year period of supervised release. Dean contends that the Government breached its plea agreement with him because the probation officer determined his base offense level on the basis of the career offender provision, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, and not under U

. S

. S

. G

. § 2D1.1, as the parties had stipulated. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Janu ary20 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-40531 Document: 00511731366 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/20/2012No. 11-40531

We review a claim of breach of a plea agreement de novo. United States

v. Pizzolato , 655 F.3d 403, 409 (5th Cir. 2011). Applying general principles of contract l a w , we must determine whether the Government’s conduct is consistent with the defendant’s reasonable understanding of the agreement. Id. By its terms, the plea agreement did not bind the probation officer or the district court, and Dean was admonished at the rearraignment th at the stipulation was not binding on the district court. Dean’s contrary understanding

was not reasonable. See id. ; see also United States v. Talbert , 501 F.3d 449, 453 (5th Cir. 2007) (“[T]he United States Probation Office is a branch of the federal judiciary and ‘an inve s ti g at o ry and supervisory arm’ of the sentencing court.” (citation omitted)); Un i t e d S t ates v. Woods , 907 F.2d 1540, 1543-44 (5th Cir. 1990). The judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal, based on Dean’s appeal waiver, or for sum m ary affirmance or an extension of time to file its brief is DENIED. See United States v. Roberts , 624 F.3d 241, 244 (5th Cir. 201 0).

2 Case: 11-40531 Document: 00511731366 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/20/2012
No. 60172.

protests 974271-G (A), etc. (Los Angeles).

#### W. A. Ballinger & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that 20 percent of the merchandise consists of rags used chiefly for papermaking, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained with respect to said 20 percent of the merchandise.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66488-66489]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21023]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4724-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]


Hawaii; Amendment No. 1 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 State of Hawaii (FEMA-4724-DR), dated August 10, 2023, and 
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued August 21, 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 notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the

[[Page 66489]]

State of Hawaii is hereby amended to include permanent work under the 
Public Assistance program for those areas determined to have been 
adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the 
President in his declaration of August 10, 2023.

    Maui County for permanent work [Categories C-G] (already 
designated for Individual Assistance and assistance for debris 
removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and B], 
including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance 
program).
    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. 2023-21023 Filed 9-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
From: c8ford@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:25:24 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,

Lynette Ford

Loveland, CO 80538
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0635 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SAUL JAMES DOOLING,

Defendant and Appellant .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including June 19, 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 12 2023

05/12/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0635
From: janie1016@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:43:40 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,

Jane Burden

Harlingen, TX 78550
From: elkinsjim@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:55:13 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,

Jim Elkins

Waurika, OK 73573
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF**

**COLLINS & AIKMANFLOORCOVERINGS, INC.**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and in connection withthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Collins & Aikman Floorcoverings, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended July 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),the undersigned, Leonard F. Ferro, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies 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 Company.
From: mike@green-construction.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:56:01 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,

Michael Green

Lakeland, FL 33811
From: jegenovese@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:26:36 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,

Janine Genovese

Waldorf, MD 20602
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted
Pursuant

To Section 906 Of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Intelsat Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies that to such officers
knowledge, the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |                        
|---------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                       | 
|Date: November 9, 2007 |  | /s/    JEFFREY
FREIMARK
|                       |  | Jeffrey Freimark       
|                       |  | Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not
being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
From: lbgraffius@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:54:48 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 Graffius

New Enterprise, PA 16664