alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NUMBER 13-16-00424-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF L.L.S., A CHILD

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 94th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Garza, Perkes, and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Lindsey Salas, attempts to appeal an order of enforcement by contempt

and suspension of commitment for failing to provide possession and access to minor 

child, L.L.S. The order provides for commitment for a period of eighteen months, 

suspended, and awards appellee Robert Salas the amount of $11,200.00 for attorney’s 

fees, expenses, and costs. 

Appellate courts have jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments and specific 

types of interlocutory orders designated by the legislature as appealable. Lehmann v. 
2

Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); see, e.g., TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE 

ANN. § 51.014 (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.). A judgment is final and appealable 

if it disposes of all parties and all issues. Lehmann, 39 S.W.2d at 195. Without 

affirmative statutory authority to hear an interlocutory appeal, this court is without 

jurisdiction. Id. 

The order issued by the trial court was not a final, appealable judgment. 

Additionally, the order held appellant in contempt and this court does not have jurisdiction 

to review contempt orders by direct appeal. See Norman v. Norman, 692 S.W.2d 655, 

655 (Tex. 1985); Tracy v. Tracy, 219 S.W.3d 527, 530 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.); 

In re B.C.C., 187 S.W.3d 721, 723 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2006, no pet.). Contempt orders 

may be reviewed only by an application for a writ of habeas corpus, if the contemnor has 

been confined, or by a petition for a writ of mandamus, if the contemnor has not been 

confined. See Rosser v. Squier, 902 S.W.2d 962, 962 (Tex. 1995); Ex parte Williams, 

690 S.W.2d 243, 243 (Tex. 1985); Tracy, 219 S.W.3d at 290.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, is of the 

opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the 

appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(a), (c). 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed this the

10th day of November, 2016.
From: Hellies@wowway.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:15:49 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,

Marcy Hellie

Canton, MI 48188
From: melkitemama@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:06:57 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Hope Jackson

Augusta, GA 30907
**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**

|               | (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:   August                9, 2006                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |                      |                     | /s/                Dirk A. Montgomery                                           |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                              |                      |      | Dirk                A. Montgomery                                               |
|                                                         |                      |      | Senior                Vice President and Chief Financial                Officer |
From: mmmunn@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:37:13 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.

Personally, I amost hope you won't back down. Such totalitarian practices as this will insure the entire

Federal WEALTH bill is repealed and your jobs are eliminated.

Sincerely,

Michael Munn

Randolph, TX 75475
From: msnbthomas@juno.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:20:53 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,

Sandra Thomas

Bella Vista, AR 72714
No. P69/57.

protests 67/74367, etc. (New York).

#### A. D. Sutton & Sons et al. *v.*United States,

Maletz, *J.*

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of nodding head animals similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Wilson's Customs*Clearance, *Inc.*v. *United States*(59 Cust. Ct. 36, C.D. 3061), and that said merchandise is wholly or in chief value of papier mache, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: m_michaelian@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:31:59 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 Michaelian

Seal Beach, CA 90740
From: khaberstock@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:32:54 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,

Karen Haberstock

Sunnyvale, CA 94086
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 390 

Recognizing the importance of the Ouachita National Forest on its 100th 

anniversary. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 9, 2007 

Mr. ROSS (for himself, Mr. BERRY, Mr. SNYDER, and Mr. BOOZMAN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 

Natural Resources 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the importance of the Ouachita National Forest 

on its 100th anniversary. 

Whereas on December 18, 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt created by proclamation the Arkansas National 

Forest on reserved public domain lands south of the Arkansas River; 

Whereas on April 29, 1926, President Calvin Coolidge issued 

an Executive Order to change the name of the Arkansas 

National Forest to the Ouachita National Forest to reflect both the name of the mountains embraced by the 

national forest and the name of the principal river which 

drains the national forest; 

Whereas Ouachita is the French spelling of a Native American word meaning ‘‘good hunting ground’’; 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•HRES 390 IH 

Whereas the Ouachita National Forest today encompasses 

approximately 1.8 million acres in Arkansas and eastern 

Oklahoma and offers a variety of recreation areas, scenic 

areas, wilderness areas, historic resources, and timber 

and other forest products to the Nation; and 

Whereas the Ouachita National Forest is the largest and oldest national forest in the southern region of the United 

States: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That on the 100th anniversary of the cre2 ation of the Ouachita National Forest, the House of Rep3 resentatives recognizes the important contributions of the 

4 Ouachita National Forest to the success of the United 

5 States in conserving the environment and ensuring that 

6 our natural resources remain sources of pride for our citi7 zens, our communities, and our Nation. 

Æ 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
Exhibit
32


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 BNH Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Nehemya Hesin, Chief
Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:





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





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





Date:
      January 25, 2010
              /s/ Nehemya HesinNehemya
      HesinPresident,
      Treasurer and DirectorPrincipal
      Executive Officer and PrincipalFinancial
      and Accounting Officer
From: Anne Maiese

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RE: religious exemptions

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 2:25:41 PM

I was so thrilled when I heard about the recommendations of the Institute of

Medicine that contraceptive devices and prescriptions be accepted as

preventive care and covered without co-pays under the new health care law.

These preventive services are a critical element of the new law and would

provide countless women better access to necessary health care.

Now I understand that exemptions are being sought for "religious employers."

I believe that those exemptions will deny many women access to contraceptive

services, since people of many religions or no religion work for "religious

employers"--especially religiously-run health care providers, like many

hospitals.

Please ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting

IOM's recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption

provisions.

Anne Maiese

Anne Maiese

5000 Boardwalk, #806

Ventnor, NJ 08406

1-609-317-4990
No. P67/256.

#### Dan Brechner & Co. *v.*United States, protest 66/65990 (New York).

Oliver, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of blown glass paperweights similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Ace Importing*Co., *Inc.*v. *United States*(44 Cust. Ct. 468, Abstract 64185), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.