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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:10:51 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,

Corene McMillen

Clinton, TN 37716
galt_ex1023.htm


EXHIBIT 10.23


 





 




  





1











  






 





 




  





2











  






 





 




  





3











  






 





 


 



4
From: wigray@earthlink.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: wigray@earthlink.net

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:54:55 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,

Willis Gray

, 29150-2282
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 66500]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20971]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

[234A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900]


Indian Gaming; Approval by Operation of Law of Tribal-State Class 
III Gaming Compact in the State of California (Middletown Rancheria of 
Pomo Indians of California & State of California)

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice publishes the approval by operation of law of the 
compact between the Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California 
(Tribe) and the State of California (State) providing for the conduct 
of Tribal class III gaming by the Tribe.

DATES: The compact takes effect on September 27, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of 
Indian Gaming, Office of the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs, 
Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, 25 
U.S.C. 2701 et seq., (IGRA) provides the Secretary of the Interior 
(Secretary) with 45 days to review and approve or disapprove the 
Tribal-State compact governing the conduct of Class III gaming activity 
on the Tribe's Indian lands. See 25 U.S.C. 2710(d)(8). If the Secretary 
does not approve or disapprove a Tribal-State compact within the 45 
days, IGRA provides the Tribal-State compact is considered to have been 
approved by the Secretary but only to the extent the compact is 
consistent with IGRA. See 25 U.S.C. 2710(d)(8)(C). The IGRA also 
requires the Secretary of the Interior to publish in the Federal 
Register notice of the approved Tribal-State compacts for the purpose 
of engaging in Class III gaming activities on Indian lands. See 25 
U.S.C. 2710(d)(8)(D). The Department's regulations at 25 CFR 293.4 
require all compacts and amendments to be reviewed and approved by the 
Secretary prior to taking effect. The Secretary took no action on the 
Compact between the Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California 
and the State of California within the 45-day statutory review period. 
Therefore, the Compact is considered to have been approved, but only to 
the extent it is consistent with IGRA. See 25 U.S.C. 2710(d)(8)(C).

Bryan Newland,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2023-20971 Filed 9-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
No. 61022.

protest 936432-G (New York).

#### China Man Way Fur Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of kidskin plates the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Prime Fur Corp.*v. *United States*(37 Cust. Ct. 83, C. D. 1802) and that the items marked “B” consist of goatskins similar to those involved in *United States*v. *Winograd Bros., Inc.*(32 C. C. P. A. 153, C. A. D. 302), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Mollison, J.,

dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1802, *supra.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FILED AS PART OF THE
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERANCE TO SUCH REPORT
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           3,576
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   51,619
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,176
<INVENTORY>                                     23,921
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                89,669
<PP&E>                                          11,533
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,174
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 212,067
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           35,207
<BONDS>                                        140,900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            91
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,421
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   212,067
<SALES>                                         45,480
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,251
<CGS>                                           25,846
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,846
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,250
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   160
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,905
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,112)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,112)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,112
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.26)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO




SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Annual Report of Universal Solar Technology, 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, Wensheng Chen, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




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




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





Date: March 31,
2010





/s/
      Wensheng ChenWensheng
      Chen, Principal Executive
Officer
No. P66/203. —

#### Louis Weinberg Associates, Inc. *v.*United States, protests 58/14831 and 60/3192 (New York).

*805Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of hats, bonnets, and hoods, composed wholly or in chief value of straw or ramie, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Morris*Shoenthal, *Inc.*v. *United States*(52 Cust. Ct. 36, C.D. 2431), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: jmartinturner@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:26:28 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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 (economically a bad decision) especially for drugs and devices that I oppose because some

of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B), which is a morally bad decision.

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.

It is your job to 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,

John Turner

Middletown, PA 17057
No. 66469.

#### S. Berger Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 60/5329, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of glass balls similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Joseph Markovits, Inc.*v. *United States*(45 Cust. Ct. 151, C.D. 2216), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: mwiland@juno.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:18:47 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Mary Wiland

Whitmore Lake, MI 48189
Before the Second Division,

February 20, 1959

No. 62769.

#### Trizonia Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 259996-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of narrow woven fabrics of cotton similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Beer Stern Import Corp.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 294, C.D. 1944), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: jmscanlon@wowway.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:54:45 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,

John Scanlon

Naperville, IL 60565
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Antonio Delcarpio, Also Known as Antonio Delgardio, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 790]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Bookson, J.), rendered September 3,1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted murder in the second degree, burglary in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 6 to 18 years, 10 to 20 years and 2 to 6 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

*342Evidence at trial was that defendant and an unapprehended accomplice were hiding on a staircase in the complainant’s building shortly after midnight, when the complainant and his companion returned from work. The complainant noticed that the usually locked outer door to the building had been left open and that the lock cylinder, which had recently been repaired, had been removed, prompting the complainant, who had recently been robbed in the building, to place his licensed handgun within reach. When the complainant reached the landing near his family residence, defendant rushed him, firing at him, and the complainant fired back. Viewed in a light most favorable to the People, such evidence was legally sufficient to prove defendant’s unlawful entry into the building and his intent to commit a crime therein *(People v Jenkins,*213 AD2d 279, *Iv denied*85 NY2d 974), despite the absence of direct evidence of a forcible entry *(People v Cozzetto,*142 AD2d 684), and regardless of whether the door had been closed but not locked *(.People v Agostinello,*191 AD2d 639, *Iv denied*81 NY2d 1069) or whether an ordinarily locked door was left open inadvertently *(People v Johnson,*162 AD2d 267, *Iv denied*76 NY2d 894). We find no reason to disturb the jury’s rejection of defendant’s explanation for the presence in the building.

Defendant’s claim that the People’s evidence intruded a justification defense into the case that they failed to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt was not raised on his motion for a trial order of dismissal, and thus was not preserved for appellate review as a matter of law *(People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10). We decline to review in the interest of justice as the credible evidence does not support defendant’s present claim that his presence in the building was innocent and that he fired at the complainant, whom he did not know, in self-defense. Also unpreserved, and in any event without merit, is defendant’s challenge to the interested witness instruction *(People v Hickey,*162 AD2d 708, 709, *Iv denied*76 NY2d 858). In the circumstances, we do not find the sentence to be excessive, as argued by defendant. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.
From: gossdw@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:58:01 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Dan Goss

Palmdale, CA 93551