alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. P69/51.

protest 67/86106 (Baltimore).

#### Kelvin & Hughes America Corp. *v.*United States,

Maletz, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of parts of non-optical electrical measuring or checking instruments used primarily for locating fish similar in all material respects to those -the subject of *Kelvin & Hughes America Corp.*v. *United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 21, C.D. 2468), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
g

P. 0. Box 6 10

Holbrook, Arizona 86025-0610

Dear Ms. Swarthout:

Thank you for your interest in Arizona’s plan to address regional haze in protected national parks and

wilderness areas as required under the Clean Air Act (CAA). We are responding to your letter dated July

23, 2012, requesting an extension ofthe public comment period and additional hearings.

We agree to extend the deadline for public comment and increase the number ofpublic hearings to

provide additional opportunity for review and comment on the regional haze plan for three power plants

in Arizona (Apache Generating Station, Cholla Power Plant and Coronado Generating Station.)

We will conduct two additional public hearings. On August 14, 2012, we will hold an additional hearing

in Holbrook, Arizona at Holbrook High School, George Gardner Performing Arts Center, 455 N. 8th

Ave. from 6-8 PM. Note that EPA has changed the location from Northland Pioneer College in order to

accommodate more people. On August 15, 2012, we will hold a hearing in Benson, Arizona, at Cochise

College (Rooms 113 and 115) from 6-8 PM. These two hearings are in addition to the public hearing

held in Phoenix on July 31, 2012.

We have extended the public comment period by two weeks, for a total of 60 days ending on September

18, 2012, but are unable to provide the 90 days that you requested. We are on an expedited schedule to

review and respond to all public comments and to prepare a final determination by the consent decree

deadline of November 15, 2012. We did request an extension ofthis deadline from the other parties to

the consent decree, but were unsuccessful.

We look forward to working with you and other interested parties to address regional haze affecting

national parks and wilderness areas. If you have further questions, please contact Colleen McKaughan,

Associate Director, at 520-498-0118.

Sincerely,

Jordan

Director, Air Division

Prin ted on Recycled I’aper
From: Al Theis

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Sunday, August 28, 2011 9:55:43 AM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Al Theis
Tinley Park, Illinois
No. 68109.

#### The Enbun Co. and James G. Wiley et al. *v.*United States,

protests 249416-K, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of vegetables similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Mutual Supplly Co.*v. *United States*(44 Cust. Ct. 75, C.D. 2155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: activectzen@windstream.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:48:24 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,

Jamie Hogshooter

Dixon, MO 65459
From: keripreng@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:46:24 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,

Keri Preng

Newport, KY 41076
Case No. 8,174.

#### LEAY et al. v. WILSON.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 191.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1804.

Evidence — Proceedings op English Bankrupt Commission — Admissibility under Virginia Act.

A copy of the proceedings of the commissioners of bankruptcy, in England, certified by a notary and the American consul, or by a notary and the mayor of Liverpool, is not evidence admissible under the act of assembly of Virginia, because not recorded in England, so as to make them evidence there. _

Assumpsit [by Leay & Gladstone, assignees of Adam Stewart, an English bankrupt]. A copy of the proceedings of the commissioners of bankruptcy, was offered in evidence by the plaintiffs’ counsel, Mr. 0. Lee, certified by a notary-public at Liverpool, with a certificate of the American consul, that he was a notary-public. He also offered another copy, certified by a notary-public and the mayor of Liverpool.

Mr. Taylor, for defendant

[James Wilson], objected that neither copy was admissible under the Virginia act (Old Rev. Code, 168), because it had no seal of state, and because the deed of assignment was not acknowledged or proved by witnesses, according to the act, nor registered according to the laws of England.

Mr. Lee, contra.

The act prescribing one j mode of authentication does not preclude the | court from deceiving papers authenticated in < a different manner.

Mr. Taylor, in reply.

The deed of assignment is not proved or acknowledged according to the act of assembly. The proceedings ought to be certified by the register of the court of chancery, or the lord chancellor, under the great seal of England. By St 5 Geo. II. c. 30, § 41, the proceedings may be entered of record, and copies of such record are made evidence.

THE COURT

refused to permit either of the copies of proceedings to be given in evidence, because not recorded in England, so as to make them evidence there, to bring it within the act of assembly; and because it was not a sworn copy.
| For      the Period: 3/10/2008 to 3/17/2008 |
|---------------------------------------------|
|                                        |

| Coupon | Interest                           | Maturity | Callable   | Survivor'sOption | Price1 | Yield2 | Moody's | S&P | CUSIP     |
|--------|------------------------------------|----------|------------|------------------|--------|--------|---------|---------|-----------|
| 3.850% | Semi-Annual(†††) | 3/15/13  | NO         | YES§        | 100.00 | 3.850% | A2      | A       | 14912HJV3 |
| 5.050% | Semi-Annual(†††) | 3/15/18  | 3/15/10*** | YES§        | 100.00 | 5.050% | A2      | A       | 14912HJW1 |
| 5.550% | Semi-Annual(†††) | 3/15/23  | 3/15/11*** | YES§        | 100.00 | 5.550% | A2      | A       | 14912HJX9 |
| 5.750% | Semi-Annual(†††) | 3/15/28  | 3/15/12*** | YES§        | 100.00 | 5.750% | A2      | A       | 14912HJY7 |
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 of Varsity Brands, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John M. Nichols, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 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:



|Dated: August 14, 2003 | /s/JOHN M. NICHOLSJohn M. Nichols
Chief Financial Officer
|---------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------

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

The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.

---

QuickLinks
(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 registrant, 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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial
reporting, or caused such internal control over
financial reporting to be designed under our
supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding
the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external
purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting;
and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: March 31, 2010
    By:
    /s/ Roman GregorigRoman GregorigVice President and Principal Financial Officer
**Exhibit
      31**


**CERTIFICATION**





I,
      Mark Bradley, certify that:





1.
      I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Players
      Network;





2.
      Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
      report;





3.
      Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the
      financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant
      as
      of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;





4.
      The registrant's other certifying officer 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)) for the registrant and we 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 registrant, including its consolidated
      subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
      during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;





b)
      evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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;





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





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





a)
      all deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
      control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
      the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
      information; and





b)
      any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
      who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial
      reporting.




Date:
              May 20,
              2008/s/ Mark
              BradleyMark
                BradleyPrincipal
                Executive and Principal
              Accounting
                Officer
From: stevec@dataknow.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:36:08 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,

Steve Cummings

Plymouth, MI 48170
No. 68095.

#### W. H. S. Lloyd Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 62/14923) etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of wallpaper sample books similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Garson M. Simon & Co.*v. *United, States*(46 Cust. Ct. 118, C.D. 2243), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: Jtpeters@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:39:55 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,

Trudy Peters

Lansing, KS 66043