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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:50:57 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,

Brian Buquoi

Covington, LA 70435
H. Res. 260

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

March 22, 2007.

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 

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

1433) to provide for the treatment of the District of Columbia as a Congressional district for purposes of representation 

in the House of Representatives, and for other purposes. All 

points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The 

amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 

accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. 

The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points 

of order against the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 

amended, to final passage without intervening motion except: 

(1) one hour and twenty minutes of debate, with one hour 

equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 

minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary and 20 

minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 

ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and 
2

•HRES 260 EH 

Government Reform; and (2) one motion to recommit with or 

without instructions. 

SEC. 2. During consideration of H.R. 1433 pursuant to 

this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 

question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 

bill to a time designated by the Speaker. 

Attest:

Clerk.
Exhibit 10.2


 


Zhuzhou Pear Orchard Fruit Tree Saplings Concession
Agreement


 


Lessor: Lin Changbin (“Party A”) I.D.: 352122197406082817


Lessee: UAN Sheng (Fujian) Agricultural Technology Co.
LTD (“Party B”)


Legal Representative: Yuan-Hao Chang


 


In order to promote agricultural cooperation and exchange
between Fujian and Taiwan, increase agricultural production and efficiency both parties with principles of mutual benefits, in
regarding the issue of pear orchard fruit tree saplings concession in the Team 8th of former Zhuzhou Farm in Zhuzhou Village of
Masha Town, entered into the below agreement after full negotiation:


		1.	Party A leases its property right of all planted fruit tree saplings (approximately 8,800 pear trees) in the pear orchard,
which covers about 300 acres woodland and water field at the original Team 8th in Erlian Shan of Zhuzhou Village to
Party B from October 18, 2012 to December 31, 2025 and these pear trees’ production all belongs to Party B; Party B uses
its advanced agricultural technology for transplant, grafting, and breed improvement.



		2.	Party B needs to pay Party A sapling fee of RMB¥500,000 and Party B needs to pay Party A deposit of RMB¥100,000 when
sign this agreement while the remaining sapling fee needs to be paid off in one payment before October 28th.



		3.	Party A needs to finish all property relocation and evacuation of personnel within 15 days after signing this agreement; Party
A needs to sign the contract of terminating the management of pear orchard with Zhuzhou Placement Station in seven days, and Party
A needs to complete the fruit tree sapling inventory hand-over procedures to Party A by the end of October.



		4.	This agreement has legal effect immediately after Party A receives Party B’s deposit; both parties needs to sincerely
perform own obligations following the agreed matters of this agreement and the party in breach needs to pay the other party triple
of the deposit as penalty in case of breach of agreement.



		5.	This agreement is in triplicate, and both parties each has one, while the Placement Management Station of Jianyang City has
one for reference; The agreement is in effect after both parties’ representatives sign and seal.




     

     

    

 


Party A: Changbin Lin


I.D.:


Address:


Phone: 13960690838


Party A’s account number:


Bank:


Bank Account: 622848 20226 16612810 Account name: Changbin
Lin


 


Party B: UAN Sheng (Fujian) Agricultural Technology
Co. LTD


Legal representative:


Address:


Phone:


 


October 18th, 2012
-80 -78 -76 -74 -72

38 40 42



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 05/28 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 28 May 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.77 N 77.11 WMeters AGL
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Orbit/FR, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the three months ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dave
Lubbe, 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:

      (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
Company.

May 14, 2004

/s/ Dave Lubbe
--------------------------------------
Dave Lubbe
Chief Financial Officer

                                                                              20
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 May 2, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, Laura J. Sen, President and 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: June 3, 2009 |  |  |  | /S/ LAURA J. SEN                                                   
|                    |  |  |  | Laura J. Sen                                                       
|                    |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal
Executive Officer)
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40934 Summary Calendar

ARNULFO RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-97-CV-238

- - - - - - - - - - March 11, 1999 Before JOHNSON, DUHE’, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Arnulfo Rodriguez, Texas prisoner # 665576, appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Rodriguez contends that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because his attorney failed to investigate the murder indictment to see if it was returned by the grand jury before the victim had died and because his attorney failed to challenge the state court’s entry of a deadly-weapon finding.No. 98-40934 -2- To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show: (1) that his counsel’s performance was deficient in that it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense. Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 689-694 (1984). “A fair assessment of attorney performance requires that every effort be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel’s challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel’s perspective at the time.” Id. at 689. To show Strickland prejudice, a defendant must demonstrate that counsel’s errors were so serious as to “render[] the result of the trial unreliable or the proceeding fundamentally unfair.” Lockhart v. Fretwell , 506 U.S. 364, 372 (1993). A failure to establish either deficient performance or prejudice defeats the claim. Strickland , 466 U.S. at 697. Upon de novo review, Rodriguez has not demonstrated either deficient performance or prejudice arising from counsel’s failure to challenge the second indictment or from his failure to object to the deadly-weapon finding. Because Rodriguez has failed to demonstrate that he has met the Strickland test for ineffective assistance of counsel, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 21.1

3COM CORPORATION SUBSIDIARIES

3Com Asia Limited (Hong Kong)

3Com Asia Pacific Rim PTE Limited (Singapore)

3Com Australia Pty. Ltd. (Australia)

3Com (Austria) GesmbH (Austria)

3Com Benelux B.V. (The Netherlands)

3Com Bilgisayer Ticaret A.S. (Turkey)

3Com Bulgaria EOOD (Bulgaria)

3Com Carrier Inc. (Delaware, U.S.A)

3Com Canada Inc. (Toronto)

3Com Costa Rica S.A. (Costa Rica)

3Com Capital Corporation (California, U.S.A.)

3Com do Brasil Servicos Ltda. (Brazil)

3Com de Chile S.A. (Chile)

3Com de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Mexico)

3Com Denmark AS (Denmark)

3Com Development Corporation (California, U.S.A.)

3Com Engineering Limited (United Kingdom)

3Com Europe Limited (United Kingdom)

3Com GmbH (Germany)

3Com Holdings Limited (Cayman Islands)

3Com Hungary Kft (Hungary)

3Com Iberia S.A. (Spain)

3Com International, Inc. (Delaware, U.S.A.)

3Com International (New Zealand) Limited (New Zealand)

3Com IFSC (Ireland) (Ireland)

3Com India Pte. Ltd. (India)

3Com Ireland Technology Limited (Cayman Islands)


<PAGE>

3Com Israel Limited (Israel)

3Com Italia S.p.A. (Italy)

3Com Japan K.K. (Japan)

3Com Korea Limited (Korea)

3Com Limited (United Kingdom)

3Com Morocco SARL (Morocco)

3Com Nordic AB (Sweden)

3Com Pension Scheme (1996) Trustees Limited (United Kingdom)

3Com Philippines Inc. (Philippines)

3Com Polska sp. z.o.o. (Poland)

3Com Russia OOO (Russia)

3Com S.A.S. (France)

3Com (Schweiz) A.G. (Switzerland)

3Com Slovakia s.r.o. (Slovakia)

3Com South Asia PTE. Ltd. (Singapore)

3Com Technologies (Cayman Islands)

3Com (Thailand) Co. Ltd. (Thailand)

3Com U.K. Holdings Limited (United Kingdom)

3Com (U.K.) Limited (United Kingdom)

3Com Ventures, Inc. (Delaware, U.S.A.)

3Com World Trade, Inc. (Barbados)

Call Technologies, Inc. (Delaware, U.S.A)

CommWorks Carrier Systems Corporation (Delaware, U.S.A)

Information Systems Group, Inc. (Utah, U.S.A.)

Lansource Inc. (Canada)

Lanworks Holdings (Delaware, U.S.A)

Lanworks Technologies Company (Canada)

Sacramento Closing (California, U.S.A)

U.S. Robotics Holdings Europe B.V. (Netherlands)

U.S. Robotics  Middle East Holdings, Inc. (Delaware, U.S.A.)

U.S. Robotics S.A. (France/Delaware, U.S.A.)

U.S. Robotics Services Limited (Ireland)
#### In re Gregory MILANOVICH, Petitioner.

No. 01-6171.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 20, 2001.

Decided July 5, 2001.

Gregory Milanovich, petitioner pro se.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

*145PER CURIAM.

Gregory Milanovich petitions this court for a writ of mandamus compelling Chief District Judge Graham C. Mullen to reverse his order transferring Milanovich’s civil action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. Milanovich has failed to demonstrate he has no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires or that his right to mandamus relief is clear and indisputable. *See Allied Chem. Corp. v. Diaflon,*449 U.S. 33, 35, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980).

Accordingly, we grant Milanovich’s motion for relief from the provisions of Fed. R.App.P. 21, but we deny mandamus relief. 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*
Exhibit 99.      Certification of filing by officers



I, Barry McDaniel, the Chief Executive Officer of Stratesec Incorporated,
certify that (i) the form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained
in the form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Stratesec Incorporated.

/s/  BARRY MCDANIEL
---------------------------
Barry McDaniel
President and Chief Executive Officer



I, Richard Roomberg, the Chief Financial Officer of Stratesec Incorporated,
certify that (i) the form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained
in the form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Stratesec Incorporated.

/s/  RICHARD ROOMBERG
---------------------------
Richard Roomberg
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 66067]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20913]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: September 26, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 19, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Contract 57 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2023-272, CP2023-275.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2023-20913 Filed 9-25-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

I, Steven C. Quay, M.D., Ph.D., Chairman of the Board, President and Chief
Executive Officer of Nastech Pharmaceutical Company Inc. ("Nastech"), certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Nastech on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that
information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Nastech.

Date: March 8, 2005

                                    By:    /s/ Steven C. Quay
                                           ----------------------------------
                                    Name:  Steven C. Quay, M.D., Ph.D.
                                    Title: Chairman of the Board, President
                                           and Chief Executive Officer

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

This certification accompanies each periodic report pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by Nastech for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128522 & (24) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

MICHAEL RUTHER Robert P. Young, Jr. FORD and MAY 

Stephen J. Markman, RUTHERFORD, Justices Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v SC: 128522 

 COA: 260391 
 Berrien CC: 04-003153-NI 

LAURENT LEDUC, TRANSPORT 

LAURENT LEDUC, INC., and 

DISTRIBUTION MARCEL DION, INC.,

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 11, 2005 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to admit pro 

hac vice is GRANTED. 

p1024 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 31, 2005 

Clerk
From: imahoney2@roadrunner.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:21:00 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,

Irene mahoney

Dellroy, OH 44620
From: mariloud124@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:26:14 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,

Marilou Ducey

Naples, FL 34105