alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: dragas2@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:22:01 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,

Darren Ragas

Chalmette, LA 70043
From: lindakeith1@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:01:48 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 Post

Peyton, CO 80831
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 Annual Report of Innovative Wireless Technologies, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Pavel Alpatov, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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.





/s/
      Pavel AlpatovPavel
      Alpatov
                              Principal
      Executive Officer
                              March
      29,
2010
From: ksh@frc.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

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

Kathy Hill

Holland, MI 49424
Final Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems 

Meeting Documentation Interagency Meeting – Comments on Rule, October 14, 2010 Date Staff Contact Information 

(Name, email, phone #) 

Name of Organization (Attach list of all attendees names and emails if possible) 

Summary of Discussion (e.g., applicability, reporting 

requirements, etc.)

Written CommProvided? Did they also submit to Dock

10/14 Roger Fernandez, 

Fernandez.roger@epa.gov

202-343-9386 

Agencies attending: OMB, EPA, 

A face to face meeting was held to discuss interagency comments and questions on the preamble, rule, and economic impact analysis. . 

Y
From: mgsayler@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:41:09 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,

Marsha Sayler

Federal Way, WA 98003
#### Tyrone Fitzgerald THOMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert L. WRIGHT, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 98-35384.

D.C. No. CV-97-05513-RJB.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 11, 2001.*

Decided June 21, 2001.

*525Before O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Tyrone Fitzgerald Thomas, a Washington state prisoner, appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his 1992 conviction of first degree possession of stolen property. The district court found that the petition was filed untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244, as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and, after de novo review, we affirm.

Title 28, U.S. Code section 2244(d) provides in pertinent part:

> (1) A 1-year period of limitations shall apply to an application of a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State Court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of-

> (A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review....

Thomas’s state court conviction became final on May 8, 1996, ninety days after the Washington State Supreme Court affirmed his conviction. *See Bowen v. Roe,*188 F.3d 1157, 1158-59 (9th Cir.1999) (concluding that the AEDPA’s one-year limitations period does not start to run until the time for petitioner to seek certiorari from the United States Supreme Court has run, even if a petitioner declines to take such action). Accordingly, the one-year period of limitations for him to file a federal habeas petition expired on May 8, 1997. Thomas’s petition, filed in the district court on August 12, 1999, was untimely by approximately two months.

Based on the record before us, Thomas has not demonstrated facts sufficient for us to view it as one of the “rare cases” where equitable tolling is appropriate. *Alvarez-Machain v. United States,*107 F.3d 696, 701 (9th Cir.1996); *see also Calderon v. United States Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of California (Kelly),*163 F.3d 530, 541 (9th Cir.1998) (en banc) (permitting equitable tolling only “if extraordinary circumstances beyond a prisoner’s control make if impossible to file a petition on time”) (internal citations omitted).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the *526courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
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 Annual Report of Cyber Supply Inc.(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended February 28, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Maria Shostak, Chief Executive Officer and 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 27th day of May, 2011.



| | MARIA SHOSTAK                                      
| | ---------------------------------------------------
| | Maria Shostak,                                     
| | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer















A signed original of these written statements required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Cyber Supply Inc. and will be retained by Cyber Supply Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                         1,000

<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                       APR-03-1999
<CASH>                                   3,240
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                           82,449
<ALLOWANCES>                            18,639
<INVENTORY>                             80,291
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       154,925
<PP&E>                                  22,848
<DEPRECIATION>                           6,296
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         280,905
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   22,926
<BONDS>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                                    68
<OTHER-SE>                             129,075
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           280,905
<SALES>                                 98,286
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        98,286
<CGS>                                   66,288
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           17,997
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           826
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       4,302
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          8,873
<INCOME-TAX>                             3,726
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      5,147
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                             5,147
<EPS-BASIC>                             0.76
<EPS-DILUTED>                             0.76



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Players
Network Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2000.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                             1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                              11,072
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       62,270
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   198,237
<PP&E>                                             464,678
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,954,412
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              535,347
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             8,540
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,303,679
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,954,412
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   689,645
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,495,756
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  20,633
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          0
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (826,744)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (0.101)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.101)



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 182 (Thursday, September 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 65182]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20491]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Amended Notice of 
Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Initial Review Group, Mentored 
Patient-Oriented Research Study Section, October 26, 2023, 10:00 a.m. 
to October 27, 2023, 6 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Rockledge 
1, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, which was published in the 
Federal Register on September 14, 2023, FR Doc 2023-19907, 88 FR 63115.
    The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Initial Review Group, 
Mentored Patient-Oriented Research Study Section meeting is being 
amended due to a change of the meeting time formats. The meeting will 
be held on October 26, 2023, from 9:00 a.m. to October 27, 6:00 p.m. 
This meeting will be a video assisted meeting, and closed to the 
public.

    Dated: September 18, 2023.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-20491 Filed 9-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
From: m3vsmith@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

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

maryellen smith

Fishers, IN 46038
From: wseay@seayworld.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:45:47 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,

Walter Seay

La Quinta, CA 92253