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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:26:11 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.

Thank you,

Linda M.Cross

Sincerely,

Linda Cross

Glendale, AZ 85308
EXHIBIT 32

                                  CERTIFICATION
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Affinity Mediaworks Corp.
(the "Company") for the year ended January 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Yulia
Nesterchuk, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss.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 results of operations
          of the Company.


Date: May 1, 2009                     By: /s/ Yulia Nesterchuk
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Yulia Nesterchuk
                                          President, Chief Executive Officer and
                                          Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to ss. 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 the Company for purposes of ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 Annual Report of GMS Capital Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10–K for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George Metrakos, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:




1.       The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




2.       The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







/s/ George MetrakosGeorge Metrakos

Principal Financial and Accounting Officer






Dated: April 1, 2010
No. 69659.

#### The Buhler Corp. and Gehrig, Hoban & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 64/12250, 64/12247, and 64/11474 (New York).

*494Opinion by

Rao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of parts essential to and dedicated to use with food preparing machines similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Standard Milling Co.*v. *United States*(50 Cust. Ct. 53, C.D. 2388), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Case No. 13,511.

#### STOVE WORKS v. PERRY.

[Cited in Cleaver v. Traders’ Ins. Co., 40 Fed. 864. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this Annual Report of Forbes Energy Services Ltd.
filed on Form 10-K (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, L. Melvin Cooper, Senior Vice President, Chief
Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary 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, to my knowledge, 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 represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



/s/ L. Melvin CooperL. Melvin CooperSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary


Date: March 31, 2009
H. Res. 348 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

May 2, 2007. 

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 

the bill (H.R. 1429) to reauthorize the Head Start Act, to 

improve program quality, to expand access, and for other 

purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. 

All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived 

except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 

one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 

ranking minority member of the Committee on Education 

and Labor. After general debate the bill shall be considered 

for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in 

order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature 

of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Education 

and Labor now printed in the bill. The committee amendment 
2 

•HRES 348 EH 

in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 

points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived except those arising under 

clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule 

XVIII, no amendment to the committee amendment in the 

nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 

in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 

resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 

order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 

designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be 

debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided 

and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not 

be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the 

Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 

amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 

or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of the 

bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 

bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 

adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the 

House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 

Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
3 

•HRES 348 EH 

passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

SEC. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 1429 

pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 

the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated by the 

Speaker. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
From: mbcornett@sc.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:27:20 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,

madeline cornett

Myrtle Beach, SC 29579
From: plisaacs@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:54:58 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,

Peggy Isaacs

Minneapolis, MN 55444
Exhibit 31.2  Certification  I, William L. Harvey, certify that:  1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2015 of Interval Leisure Group, Inc.;  2.Based on my knowledge, this 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 this report.  Dated: March 9,   2016
/s/ WILLIAM L.   HARVEYWilliam L.   HarveyChief   Financial Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

# TIME AND DATE: 

10:00 a.m., Tuesday, October 10, 2023.

# PLACE: 

The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 504 North, Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance).

# STATUS: 

Open.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

                        The Commission will hear oral argument in the matter                         *Thomas*                         v.                         *CalPortland Co.,*                         Docket Nos. WEST 2018-0402-DM and WEST 2019-0205. (Issues include whether the Judge erred in ruling that the miner had established that the operator had discriminated against him under section 105(c)(3) of the Mine Act.)                    

Any person attending this oral argument who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFO: 

Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

# PHONE NUMBER FOR LISTENING TO MEETING: 

1 (866) 236-7472, Passcode: 678-100.

*Authority:*5 U.S.C. 552b.                    

Dated: September 22, 2023.

Sarah L. Stewart,

Deputy General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2023-21162 Filed 9-25-23; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 6735-01-P
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 14, 2024

NO. 03

- 22

- 00466

- CV

Bryce Carpenter , Appellant

v.

Daspit Law Firm, PLLC and Robert Morse , Appellee s

APPEAL FROM THE 345TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND SMITH

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE SMITH

This is an appeal from the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss

. Having reviewed the

record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error in the trial

court’s denial

. Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s denial

. The appellant shall pay all

costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
#### Peter L. DANIEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert A. HARWAY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-57100.

D.C. No. CV-02-06580-DSF.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 5, 2005.

Peter L. Daniel, Signal Hill, CA, pro se.

John Francis Bazan, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 Because the panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument, Daniel's request for oral argument is denied. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

*625MEMORANDUM**

Peter L. Daniel, a former California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s partial dismissal and partial summary judgment in favor of the defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs and violated the public services provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Frost v. Agnos,*152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir.1998) (summary judgment); *Bagdadi v. Nazar,*84 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir.1996) (dismissal). We affirm.

Dismissal of Daniel’s claims against the prison doctors was proper because Daniel’s disagreement as to his treatment plan does not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation. *See Jackson v. McIntosh,*90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1996).

The district court properly granted summary judgment to Dr. McAdams because Daniel failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Dr. McAdams was acting under color of state law when he conducted an independent medical examination pursuant to Daniel’s request. *See Blum v. Yaretsky,*457 U.S. 991, 1011-12, 102 S.Ct. 2777, 73 L.Ed.2d 534 (1982).

Daniel’s remaining contentions lack merit.

We deny all pending motions.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsMeasurement of Gear Tooth Dynamic FrictionMeasurements of dynamic friction forces at the gear tooth contact were undertaken using strain gages at the root fillets of two successive teeth. Results are presented from two gear sets over a range of speeds and loads. The results demonstrate that the friction coefficient does not appear to be significantly influenced by the sliding reversal at the pitch point, and that the friction coefficient values found are in accord with those in general use. The friction coefficient was found to increase at low sliding speeds. This agrees with the results of disc machine testing.Document ID19970001588Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsRebbechi, Brian*(Defence Science and Technology Organisation Melbourne,  Australia)*Oswald, Fred B.*(NASA Cleveland, OH United States)*Townsend, Dennis P.*(NASA Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateSeptember 1, 1996Subject CategoryMechanical EngineeringReport/Patent NumberARL-TR-1165E-10350NAS 1.15:107279NASA-TM-107279Meeting InformationMeeting: International Power Transmission and Gearing ConferenceLocation: San Diego, CACountry: United StatesStart Date: October 6, 1996End Date: October 9, 1996Sponsors:American Society of Mechanical EngineersAccession Number97N11382Funding Number(s)PROJECT: DA Proj. 1L1-62211-A-47-APROJECT: RTOP 505-62-36Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970001588.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alejandro Marmolao, Also Known as Orlando Johnson, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 476]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered May 19, 1994, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

*459Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Krausman and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.