alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: billdad46@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:07:04 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,

Bill Clark

Eau Claire, WI 54703
Case No. 8,792.

#### McFERRAN et al. v. WHERRY.

[5 Cranch, C. C. 677.] 1

Circuit Court. District of Columbia.

March Term, 1840.

Arrest — Under Attachment — By Capias — Privilege — Suitor in Cause.

If an attachment, under the Maryland act of 1795 (chapter 56) and a capias ad respondendum, he both served while the defendant is attending the court as a party in another cause, the attachment will be ordered to be dissolved upon the arrest of the defendant on the capias, and the defendant will be discharged from the arrest, because privileged as a suitor in another cause.

[This was an action by MeFerran and Duncan against Wherry.)

An attachment under the Maryland act of 1795 (chapter 56) was laid in the hands of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company on the 24th of December, 1839. The defendant, being a non-resident, was attending this court as a party in another cause. With the attachment a capias ad respondendum was issued on the same day upon which the defendant was taken; and the marshal returned the attachment “laid in the hands of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company,” and returned the capias “cepi.” The defendant being brought in by the marshal, moved to be discharged, because, as a suit- or in this court, in another cause, he was privileged from arrest during the term, &c. And THE COURT (MORSELU, Circuit Judge, absent,) discharged him from the arrest. and did not require him to enter his appearance in the suit; and ordered the return of the attachment to be quashed, because the defendant was present when the attachment was served; and the defendant could not be compelled to appear, either by capias, or by means of an attachment of his effects, during the term, and while the defendant was thus privileged from arrest as a party.

II. J. Brent now moved THE COURT (THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent,) to rescind the order to quash the return of the attachment, and cited several cases to show that the attachment is intended as a means to compel an appearance to the action, and that the attachment cannot be dissolved without special bail.

THE COURT

(THRUSTON,- Circuit Judge, absent,)

refused to rescind the order to quash tlie return of the attachment; and ordered the attachment to be dissolved. See U. S. v. Stansbury, 1 Pet. [26 U. S.] 573.
(R.D. 11492)

#### Otto Ries and Company Alfred H. Marzolf, Inc., Agents *v.*United States

Entry No. 21648, etc.

(Decided February 27, 1968)

*Glad é Tuttle*for the plaintiffs.

*Edwin L. Weisl, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Watson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED A1STD AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. That the merchandise the subject of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in Schedule “A” attached hereto and made a part hereof, consist of dolls, doll dresses, plastic togs, plastic flowers and plastic badminton sets exported from Hong Kong between March 18, 1965 and Aug. 7,1965.

> 2. That at the time of exportation to the United States of these various items the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or, in the absence of sales, offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment, to the United States, were the appraised values less the 5 per cent buying commission noted on the invoice.

> 3. That the merchandise covered by the said appeals for reappraisement was entered subsequent to February 27,1958.

> 4. That the various items the subject of this stipulation are not included in the list of articles designated by the Secretary of the Treasury in T.D. 54521, as provided for in Sec. 6(a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, Public Law 927, 84th Congress, and that said items are subject to appraisement under Sec. 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956.

> *7885. That the said appeals for reappraisement may be deemed submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 'by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved and that such value in each case was -the appraised value, less the 5 percent buying commission noted on the invoice.

Judgment will issue accoi'dingly.
From: davidandkarencole@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:11:33 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,

David Cole

Linthicum Heights, MD 21090
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 66013]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20756]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting of the 
National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Special 
Emphasis Panel.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and 
Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel; Career Development (Ks) and 
Conference Support (R13) Review.
    Date: November 9, 2023.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Democracy II, Suite 920, 
6707 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20817 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Alexander O. Komendantov, Ph.D., MS, Scientific 
Review Officer, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and 
Bioengineering, National Institutes of Health, 6707 Democracy Blvd., 
Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 451-3397, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5c3d3039243d3238392e723733313932383d3228332a1c323534723b332a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a8c9c4cdd0c9c6cccdda86c3c7c5cdc6ccc9c6dcc7dee8c6c1c086cfc7de">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, 
National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, 
National Institutes of Health.)

    Dated: September 20, 2023.
Victoria E. Townsend,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-20756 Filed 9-25-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 13.1




Certification by the Chief Executive Officer 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, the undersigned, Nanyan Zheng, Chief Executive Officer of 7 Days Group Holdings Limited (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge, that the Company’s annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010 (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: May 4, 2011





By:
/s/    Nanyan ZhengName:
Nanyan ZhengTitle:
Chief Executive Officer
From: glaztiger@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:38:05 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,

Joanne Millum

San Diego, CA 92126
No. 67046.

protests 61/5380, etc. (New York).

#### H. Cohen Import Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Bao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of waterproof cotton cloth similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *D. H. Grant & Co., Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 20, C.A.D. 723), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                  0
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        0
<PP&E>                                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   0
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                                6,250
<OTHER-SE>                              0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            0
<SALES>                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        0
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         0
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                            0
<EPS-BASIC>                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0



</TABLE>
1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required
to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Principal
Life Income Fundings Trust 2008-028 (the Exchange Act periodic reports);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, do
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 this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information
required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is
included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;4.
    
    Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this
report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act
periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing
agreement(s) in all material respects; and5.
    
    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of
compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included
in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such
reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.
   /s/ Dwight N. SoethoutDwight N. SoethoutVice President  Principal Life Insurance Company
## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

MANDATE

TO THE 59TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF GRAYSON COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas, on the 25 th day of June

, 2015 , the

cause on appeal to revise or reverse the judgment between

RORY HOGENSON, Appellant

No. 05

- 14

- 00981

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal f rom the 59th Judicial District

Court, Grayson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 063011.

Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck.

Justices Bridges and Lang participating.

was determined; and this Court made its order in these words:

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of the Court of Appeals

for the Fifth District of Texas, in this behalf, and have it duly obeyed and executed.

WITNESS the HON. CAROLYN WRIGHT, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals, with

the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of Dallas, this 8 th day o f September, 2015.

LISA MATZ, Clerk
No. 65134.

#### Hensel, Bruckmann *&*Lorbacher, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/6763 (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

There being nothing before the court tending in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the classification by the collector, the protest was overruled.
#### William G. Jones, Appellant, v. Lula V. Jones, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Daniels, J.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 66450]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21075]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank 
holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the 
applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 
1817(j)(7)).
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards 
enumerated in paragraph 7 of the Act.
    Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at 
the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, 
Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington DC 20551-0001, not later than October 12, 2023.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Jeffrey Imgarten, Assistant 
Vice President, 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri, 64198, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#38737b59484854515b594c5157565b5755555d564c4b78535b165e4a5a16574a5f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="49020a28393925202a283d2026272a2624242c273d3a09222a672f3b2b67263b2e">[email protected]</span></a>:
    1. Jeffrey Alan Svajgr, Omaha, Nebraska; to join the Olson/Svajgr 
Family Group, a group acting in concert, to acquire voting shares of 
Midwest Banco Corporation, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares 
of Waypoint Bank, both of Cozad, Nebraska.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Erin Cayce,
Assistant Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2023-21075 Filed 9-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Before the Second Division,

March 27, 1963

No. 67534.

#### American Pecco Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 58/25885, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of form supports similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Universal Builders Supply Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(48 Cust. Ct. 99, C.D. 2319), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.