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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Stop violating my conscience!

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:49:10 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,

William Rysavy

Burnsville, MN 55306
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1495 

Supporting the goals and ideals of National Assisted Living Week. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the goals and ideals of National Assisted Living 

Week. 

Whereas approximately one million people live in assisted living across the United States; 

Whereas the first of seventy-seven million Baby Boomers will 

begin to reach retirement age in 2011; 

Whereas an estimated 36,000 facilities provide the assisted 

living services used by the elderly and those with disabilities in the United States; 

Whereas assisted living is a long-term care service that fosters choice, dignity, independence, and autonomy for the 

elderly and people with disabilities across the United 

States; and 

Whereas National Assisted Living Week highlights the privilege, value, and responsibility of passing the legacies of 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1495 IH 

the lives of the elderly and those with disabilities down 

through the generations that care for and love them: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the goals and ideals of National 

3 Assisted Living Week; and 

4 (2) urges all people of the United States— 

5 (A) to visit friends and loved ones who re6 side at assisted living facilities; and 

7 (B) to learn more about assisted living 

8 services, including how assisted living services 

9 benefit communities in the United States. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2658 Del Mar Heights Road + Del Mar, CA 92014 + 858

‐ 755

‐ 3258 Phone March 21, 2012

The Honorable Ray LaHood

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Alaska Airlines’ application for SAN

‐ DCA, Docket No. DOT

‐ OST

‐ 2012

‐ 0029.

Dear Secretary LaHood:

BURGES property + company fully supports the application of Alaska Airlines for air service between

San Diego and Washington Reagan National Airport (DCA). San Diego is the largest region without

direct service to DCA. Additionally, due to the profound community of interest between San

Diego and the nation’s capital, the region generates the largest passenger market demand

without nonstop service to the convenient and close

‐ in airport serving our nation’s capitol

.

San Diego’s sheer market size to Washington coupled with the fact that San Diego to Dulles average

airfares are the highest of west coast cities, should qualify for the limited slots available for this

flight. The high airfare is exacerbated when factoring in taxi fares from Dulles to Washington’s city

center that average about $60 each way. This means travelers between Washington’s city center

and San Diego via Dulles can pay on average close to $400 one

‐ way.

There are also countless other San Diego

‐ based and Washington

‐ based businesses that are engaged

in health science, telecommunications, and national defense that need quick and convenient access

to Reagan National Airport. BURGES property + company has an immediate need for additional

nonstop air service to our nation’s capital. Alaska Airlines service would add a needed nonstop

option to a primary gateway to Washington, DC. BURGES property + company joins with the San

Diego County Regional Airport Authority, the San Diego Regional Economic Development

Corporation, the World Trade Center San Diego, and the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce

in support of Alaska Airlines’ application for San Diego

– Washington Reagan National slots.

We thank the Department of Transportation for the opportunity to comment on the above

referenced docket and we hope to hear of a favorable review of Alaska Airlines’ San Diego

– DCA

proposal soon.

Sincerely,

BURGES property + company

Jeffrey W. Burges

President
Case No. 7,608.

#### KANE v. LOVE.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 429.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Oct. Term, 1823.

Practice at Law — Writ or Pi. Fa. — 'When Quashed.

The court will not quash a fi. fa. issued after the death of the defendant if it bear teste before his death.

Motion to quash a fi. fa. because it was ;ssued after the death of the defendant. The judgment was in the lifetime of the defendant. and the execution bore teste before his death.

Mr. Caldwell, for plaintiff, cited Bragner v. Langmead, 7 Term R. 20.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Craneh, Chief Judge.]

THE COURT

took time to consider; and afterwards refused to quash the execution.

MORSELL, Circuit Judge, contra.
March 30, 1964

No. 68409.

Appeal 5140.

#### Best Moulding Corporation *v.*United States (Brown, Aleantar & Brown, Inc., Party in Interest).

C.D. 2366 affirmed December 12, 1963. C.A.D. 829.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Dept. of Environmental Protection

Commonwealth News Bureau 

Room 308, Main Capitol Building 

Harrisburg PA., 17120 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

04/19/2011

CONTACT:

Katy Gresh, Department of Environmental Protection

412-442-4203 

DEP Calls on Natural Gas Drillers to Stop Giving Treatment Facilities Wastewater

Efforts in Motion to Quickly Stop Drilling Wastewater from Going to Treatment Works ‘Grandfathered’ by the Previous 

Administration

HARRISBURG -- At the direction of Governor Tom Corbett, acting Department of Environmental Protection Secretary 

Michael Krancer today called on all Marcellus Shale natural gas drilling operators to cease by May 19 delivering wastewater

from shale gas extraction to 15 facilities that currently accept it under special provisions of last year’s Total Dissolved Solids 

(TDS) regulations.

“While the prior administration allowed certain facilities to continue to take this wastewater, conditions have changed since 

the implementation of the TDS regulations,” Krancer said. “We now have more definitive scientific data, improved 

technology and increased voluntary wastewater recycling by industry. We used to have 27 grandfathered facilities; but over

the last year, many have voluntarily decided to stop taking the wastewater and we are now down to only 15. More than half 

of those facilities are now up for permit renewal. Now is the time to take action to end this practice.”

The 2010 revised regulations require publicly owned treatment works and centralized waste treatment facilities to treat new 

or increased discharges of TDS to more stringent standards. Removing TDS from water also removes bromides. The 

previous administration, however, chose to allow facilities that had historically accepted drilling wastewater to continue to 

accept it, as long as they did not increase their input load of wastewater.

Recent surface water sampling has found elevated levels of bromide in rivers in the Western portion of the state, where the 

majority of natural gas drilling is taking place. Bromide, itself non-toxic, turns into a combination of potentially unsafe 

compounds called Total Trihalomethanes once it is combined with chlorine for disinfection at water treatment facilities.

“While there are several possible sources for bromide other than shale drilling wastewater, we believe that if operators 

would stop giving wastewater to facilities that continue to accept it under the special provision, bromide concentrations 

would quickly and significantly decrease,” Krancer said.

For more information about DEP, visit www.depweb.state.pa.us.

Print Page 1 of 2

http://www.newsroom.dep.state.pa.us/newsroompublic/Print.aspx?id=17071&typeid=1 12/12/2013
Print Page 2 of 2

http://www.newsroom.dep.state.pa.us/newsroompublic/Print.aspx?id=17071&typeid=1 12/12/2013
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                           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 Quarterly Report of Remington Oil and Gas
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, James A. Watt, Chief Executive 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.

     This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, and not for any other purpose.

                                                   /s/ JAMES A. WATT
                                          --------------------------------------
                                                      James A. Watt
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer

May 2, 2003

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Remington Oil and Gas Corporation and will be retained by
Remington Oil and Gas Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

                                        18
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-17-00032-CR

EX PARTE MICHAEL TING-HUEI KUNG

From the 272nd District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13-02265-CRF-272-A

ORDER

The State’s motion for extension of time to file brief filed on May 23, 2017 is 

granted. The brief is due by Friday, July 7, 2017.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Order issued and filed May 31, 2017
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- ) ) The Ryan Company ) ) Under Contract No. DACW69-02-C-OOO 1 ) APPEARANCES FORTHE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 58137

Lawrence M. Prosen, Esq. Christian F. Henel, Esq.

Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Washington, DC Thomas H. Gourlay, Jr., Esq.

Engineer ChiefTrial Attorney Willie J. Williams, Esq. Bradley J. Stark, Esq.

Engineer Trial Attorneys U.S. Army Engineer District, Huntington ORDER OF DISMISSAL Pursuant to the request ofthe parties in theirjoint "STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL," dated 21October2016, this case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Dated: 2 November 2016

J. REID PROUTY Administrative Judge Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContractAppeals in ASBCA No. 58137, Appeal ofThe Ryan Company, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
No. 62234.

#### Columbia Novelty Co. *v.*United States,

protest 307931-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of ehalkwhite stones the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 59105, except that said stones are not faceted, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: hgilbert1@kc.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:20:55 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,

Harvey Gilbert

,
Date 2/25/11 Page of 

POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT 

Summary Page 

Chemical ID: P-11-0106 Reviewer: Bevington 

Endpoints-Assessed Table 

Endpoints/Assessment 

Cycles1

Releases 

Assessed 

in 

NCEM2? 

Reasons for not assessing releases 

No XB 

Testing 

Required 

No 

Hazard 

Concern 

No 

Releases 

Release 

Below 

Acute 

Threshold5

Release 

Below 

Chronic 

Threshold5

Other 

Ingestion 

 Surface water 

 Ground water (landfill) 

 Consumer Use: DtD2

Inhalation 

 Air: incineration (stack) 

 Air: fugitive 

 Consumer Use: CEM3

Dermal 

 Consumer Use: CEM 

Eco 

 Surface water: ADR 

conc and/or PDM4

 Consumer Use: DtD

1

Assessment cycles are endpoint concentrations and dose calculations within the NCEM2 model. 2

Down-the-Drain 

3

Consumer Exposure Model 

4

Probabilistic Dilution Model 

5

The threshold values for assessing endpoints are 1 mg/day for acute doses and 1 mg/year for chronic doses. 

EAB DROP: Release information for this compound does not meet criteria for preparation of an exposure 

assessment in the Exposure Assessment Branch=s (EAB) Initial Review Exposure Report (this report). 

EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification Pursuant to**

**18 U.S.C. §1350,**

**As Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of InfoTech USA, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jonathan F. McKeage, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | /s/ Jonathan F. McKeage                                            |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Jonathan F. McKeagePresident, Chief Executive Officer and Director |
|   |                                                               |
|   | Date:  February 14, 2007                                 |
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 7, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00904

- CR

Hollis Robert BLEDSOE

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 437th Judicial Di strict Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR9715W Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Pursuant to a plea

- bargain agreement, Hollis Robert Bledsoe pled nolo contendere to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to four years of imprisonment and a fine of $1,500.00 in accordance with the terms of his plea

- bargain agreement. On October 24,

2018 , the trial court signed a certification of defendant’s right to appeal stating that this “is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(a)(2).

After Bledsoe filed a notice of appeal, the trial court clerk sent copies of the certification and notice of appeal to this court. See id. 25.2(e). The clerk’s record, which includes the trial court’s Rule 25.2(a)(2) certification, has been fi led. See id. 25.2(d).

“In a plea bargain case ... a defendant may appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or (B) after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal.” Id. 25.2(a)(2). The clerk’s record, which contains a written plea bargain, establishes the punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See id. The clerk’s record does not include a written

motion filed and ruled upon before trial; nor does it indicate that the trial court gave its permission to appeal. See id. The trial court’s certification, therefore, appears to accurately reflect that this is a plea

- bargain case and that Bledsoe does not have a right to appeal. We must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.” Id. 25.2(d).

This appeal will be dismissed pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d),

unless an amended trial court certification showing that Bledsoe has the right to appeal is madepart of the appellate record by January 7, 2019

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; Daniels v.

State , 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003 , order).

We ORDER all appellate deadlines be suspended until further order of the court.

___________________________ ______ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 7th day of December, 2018

.

_________________________ __________ K eith E. H ottle

Clerk of Court
From: Thomasphillipsjr@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:57:31 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,

Thomas Phillips

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060