alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 21-2 Filed 08/25/03 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 21-2 Filed 08/25/03 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 21-2 Filed 08/25/03 Page 3 of 3
800 Independence Ave., S.W.

Washington, DC 20591

AFS-112-491-P

November 7, 2012

Mr. David Kollen

Vice President, Quality and Regulatory Affairs

Inova Labs, Inc.

3500 Comsouth Drive, Suite 100

Austin, TX 78744

Dear Mr. Kollen:

In your August 3, 2012, letter, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

to amend Special Federal Aviation Regulation 106, Section 2 and Section 3(a) of Title 

14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). This amendment would include the Inova 

Labs, Inc., LifeChoice Portable Oxygen Concentrator (POC) as an approved POC for on

board aircraft.

The FAA amended SFAR 106 on October 16, 2012 (77 FR 63217) to add the following

POC devices that may be carried on and used by a passenger on board an aircraft: 

• AirSep Focus

• AirSep Freestyle 5

• Inogen One G3

• Inova Labs LifeChoice Activox

• Respironics Simply Go

• Precision Medical EasyPulse

• SeQual SAROS

Therefore, we will take no further action on this petition and Docket No. FAA-2012-0834

is being closed.

Sincerely,

/s/

Ida M. Klepper

Manager, Airmen and 

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
From: mah348@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:37:42 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,

Mary Anne Hackett

La Grange, IL 60525
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002,
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

            In connection with the Quarterly Report of Alkermes, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
F. Pops, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,18 U.S.C. Section 1350 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 result of operations of the
Company.



                                        /s/  Richard F. Pops
                                        -----------------------
                                        Richard F. Pops
                                        Chief Executive Officer
                                        August 13, 2003
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 26, 2011 

y0919 

Order 

 

September 26, 2011 

143168 & (29) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143168 

 COA: 302076 

Wayne CC: 09-031292-FC 

JEREMY ALAN CRAIG, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 19, 2011 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 for bond is 

DENIED.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Senat, Benita, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Omni Indemnity Company, Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Freiberg, Peck &amp; Kang, LLP (Yilo J. Kang of counsel), for appellant.The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (John J. Kelley, J.), entered April 19, 2017. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied defendant's motion which had sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that defendant had not issued an insurance policy covering the vehicle which was involved in the accident in question and that, therefore, plaintiff had sued the wrong party.</p><p>For the reasons stated in <i>Island Life Chiropractic Pain Care, PLLC, as Assignee of Dorleans, Darlene v Omni Indem. Co.</i> (___ Misc 3d ___, 2019 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2017-526 K C], decided herewith), the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.</p><br><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: March 15, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
From: MSBhagat@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:37:28 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,

Marge Bhagat

Weslaco, TX 78596
No. 59229.

protests 226804-K, etc. (Juneau, Alaska).

#### Ketchikan Meat Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beef similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Swift & Company et al.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 212, C. D. 1655), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: lorhur@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:25:45 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,

Loretta Hurite

Cuyahoga Falls, OH 44221
From: mauricepentico@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:30:29 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,

Maurice Pentico

Wake Forest, NC 27587
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W.D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

THOMAS MICHAEL CORDERO,

Defendant.

Case No. CR05-5705RBL

INITIAL ORDER RE:

ALLEGATIONS OF

VIOLATION OF

CONDITIONS OF

SUPERVISION

THIS MATTER comes on for an initial hearing on the Petition of the United States Probation

Office alleging that the defendant has violated the conditions of supervision.

The plaintiff appears through Assistant United States Attorney, DOUG HILL. 

The defendant appears personally and represented by counsel, COLIN FIEMAN. 

The U.S. Probation Office has filed a petition alleging violations of the terms and conditions of

 supervision, and the defendant has been advised of the allegation(s).

The court finds probable cause with regard to the allegation(s) and schedules a hearing on the

 petition to be held at the time and date below set forth before Judge RONALD B. LEIGHTON:

Date of hearing: OCTOBER 9, 2009

Time of hearing: 10:00 A.M.

 IT IS ORDERED that the defendant:

( ) Be released on an appearance bond, subject to the terms and conditions set forth thereon.

(X) Be detained for failing to show that he/she will not flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community pursuant to CrR 32.1(a)(1), and CrR 46(c), to be delivered as ordered 

 by the court for further proceedings.

The clerks shall direct copies of this order to counsel for the United States, to counsel for the

defendant, the United States Marshal and to the United States Probation Office and/or Pretrial Services

Office.

A

September 28, 2009.

J. Richard Creatura

United States Magistrate Judge
No. 62239.

#### Joseph Rotberg & Co., Inc., and W. J. Byrnes & Co. of N. Y., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 145959-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of kidskins or lambskins the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Joseph Rotberg & Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(40 Cust. Ct. 22, C. D. 1952), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 465 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          June 7, 2007.
    Resolved,  That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 65) to provide for the recognition of the 
Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, 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 in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on Natural Resources now printed in the bill, modified by 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 of 
debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Natural Resources; and (2) one motion to recommit 
with or without instructions.
    Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 65 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.
```
No. 62215.

#### Raymor Mfg. Division, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 330879-K and 58/4723 (New York).

*337Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of chairs similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Davies Turner & Co.*v. *United States*(45 C. C. P. A. 39, C. A. D. 669), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: dritzbits@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:57:22 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,

Dave Ritsema

Grandville, MI 49418
<EX-31(b)>
                                                 Exhibit 31(b)
                        CERTIFICATIONS
I, James C. Estill, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of
   Calloway's Nursery, 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;

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

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are
   responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
   controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-
   15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

  a.   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
       caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
       under our supervision, to ensure that material information
       relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
       subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
       entities, particularly during the period in which this report
       is being prepared;
  b.   Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's
       disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this
       report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
       disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
       period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
  c.   Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
       internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
       the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's
       fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that
       has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to affect,
       the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
       and

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

  a.   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
       the design or operation of internal control over financial
       reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
       registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report
       financial information; and
  b.   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
       management or other employees who have a significant role in
       the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date:     February 13, 2004
/s/ James C. Estill
James C. Estill
President and Chief Executive Officer