alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: daniel.dickinson@lausd.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:41:44 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,

Daniel Dickinson

Ontario, CA 91761
Before the Second Division,

October 9, 1962

No. 67101.

protest 60/23805 (Boston).

#### Hub Distributors, Inc. *v.*United States,

*252Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 99.5



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC
ACCOUNTING FIRM



We consent to the
incorporation by reference in Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement No. 333-206476 on Form F-10 and to the use of our
reports dated March 30, 2016 relating to the consolidated financial statements of Sandstorm Gold Ltd. (“Sandstorm”)
and the effectiveness of Sandstorm’s internal control over financial reporting (which report expresses an adverse opinion
on the effectiveness of Sandstorm’s internal control over financial reporting because of a material weakness) appearing
in this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Sandstorm for the year ended December 31, 2015.



| | /s/ Deloitte LLP                  
| | ----------------------------------
| | Chartered Professional Accountants
| | Vancouver, Canada                 
| | December 7, 2016
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Breland, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 175]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.), rendered February 24, 1994, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On July 19, 1993, at about 9:15 p.m., four men, including the defendant, approached and surrounded the complainant. The defendant, who stood directly in front of her, held a gun to the complainant’s head and instructed her not to move or say anything or else she would be shot. The men then took the complainant’s pocketbook, which contained $390 in cash and a postal money order for $130, and fled. A short time later, the defendant was arrested after he was identified by the complainant as one of the men who had robbed her.

The defendant was not deprived of his right to be present at a material stage of the trial when the court held an in-camera conference in his absence following the jury charge at which it heard exceptions to the jury charge and the defense counsel’s motion for a mistrial based on the prosecutor’s summation.

*679This conference "was an ancillary proceeding at which only legal argument was made, and thus defendant’s absence therefrom did not affect his ability to defend and was not a violation of his right to be present at all material steps of the trial” *(People v Jones,*199 AD2d 6; *see, People v Velasco,*77 NY2d 469; *People v Ferguson,*67 NY2d 383; *People v Ramos,*173 AD2d 748).

Viewed in the light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), the complainant’s testimony was legally sufficient to prove the defendant’s identification beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Hussey,*170 AD2d 693; *People v Castellanos,*167 AD2d 348, 349). Moreover, the inconsistencies the defendant points out between the complainant’s trial testimony and her statements made to the police and/or her Grand Jury testimony, concern issues of credibility and the weight to be accorded her testimony. However, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find that they are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Balletta, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.
srgr UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 10 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 ,rc Seattle, WA 98101-3140 ° 

# Ilt
September 18, 2013
MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Alcoa Wenatchee Works Cost Analysis for Limestone Slurry Forced Oxidation

(LSFO) Scrubbing - Wenatchee, Washington OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

FROM:

TO: Steve Body, Environmental Scientist

Air Planning Unit, OAWT As you requested, I've prepared a cost estimate for a limestone slurry forced oxidation (LSFO) scrubber to control emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) from Potline #5 at Alcoa's Wenatchee Works primary aluminum smelter. This memo provides a brief description of the attached calculations. 1. The cost estimate is primarily based on the cost analysis I prepared in 2012 for a similar scrubber at Alcoa's Intalco Works smelter in Ferndale, WA. The Intalco cost analysis for LSFO is described in a technical memo dated November 16, 2012 which was prepared as part of our evaluation of Best Available Retrofit Technology at that facility. 2. Two primary changes to the Intalco analysis were necessary in order to produce a cost analysis which reasonable reflects study level costs (± 30%) for a Potline #5 scrubber at the Wenatchee smelter: a. Certain capital and operating costs were scaled proportionally based on key size and/or operating parameters. The Potline #5 scrubber would be approximately one third the size of the Intalco scrubber evaluated in 2012 based on the volumetric flow rate of the exhaust gas requiring treatment. I believe proportional scaling of costs results in a general underestimate of costs for the Wenatchee smelter due to economies of scale. Specifically, a larger scrubber would be expected to cost marginally less per unit of exhaust gas than a smaller scrubber. Assuming these costs are equal per unit of exhaust gas likely underestimates the costs associated with the Wenatchee Potline #5 scrubber.

* Pflnfed on Aetycfed Paperb. The capital equipment cost provided by the scrubber manufacturer has been adjusted to account for inflation over the 7 years that have passed since the original equipment cost estimates were prepared in 2006. Alcoa provided information from one equipment vendor that provided a cost estimate in 2006 stating that expected 2013 costs would be 20-25% higher. Examination of the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI) over the period 2006-2012 suggests an increase of 17% 1 in terms of general chemical process industry plant costs. Based on this information, my cost analysis assumes an increase of 20% for the capital equipment cost. 3. Incorporating these adjustments, I estimate the cost effectiveness of LSFO for Potline #5 at the Wenatchee Works smelter at approximately $7,500 - $8,500 per ton of S02 removed. Please see the attached spreadsheet for the detailed calculations. If you have any questions about these comments, please call me at 3-1217. C: Mark Filippini, Unit Manager, ESU, OEA Debra Suzuki, Unit Manager, APU, OAWT Juliane Matthews, ORC

1 2006 Annual Index = 499.6. 2012 Annual Index = 584.6. 084.6-499.611499.6 = 0.17. The CEPCI is published by Chemical Engineering Magazine. 2
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 380 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         July 23, 2007.
Whereas Special Olympics is an international nonprofit organization that 
        promotes personal development through sports training and competition;
Whereas Special Olympics advances the understanding of intellectual disabilities 
        through participation and fellowship in the Nation and around the World;
Whereas Special Olympics serves more than 2,500,000 individuals with 
        intellectual disabilities around the globe;
Whereas Special Olympics offers more than 205 programs in over 165 countries;
Whereas Special Olympics offers 30 Olympic-type summer and winter sports to both 
        children and adults with intellectual disabilities;
Whereas Boise, Idaho won the International bid to host the 2009 Special Olympics 
        World Winter Games to be held during February 6-13, 2009;
Whereas thousands of athletes are expected to compete in 7 winter sports in the 
        2009 Special Olympics World Winter Games; and
Whereas the 2009 Special Olympics World Winter Games will be the largest multi-
        sport event ever held in the State of Idaho: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) applauds the goals and principles of Special Olympics;
            (2) salutes the athletes, coaches, family members, friends, and 
        volunteers that make Special Olympics World Winter Games possible;
            (3) congratulates the State of Idaho as the host for the 2009 
        Special Olympics World Winter Games; and
            (4) supports the 2009 Special Olympic World Winter Games and the 
        goals of the Special Olympics to enrich the lives of people with 
        intellectual disabilities through sports.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
From: espi2by2@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:45:08 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,

Katherine Beninati

Chino Hills, CA 91709
From: tomrazz@rocketmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:48:44 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,

Tom Razz

Belleville, NJ 07109
No. 66023.

#### W. C. Sullivan & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 58/11883-10040, etc. (Chicago).

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.
Exhibit 32.02

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 State Auto Financial Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven E. English, Chief 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 result of
operations of the Company.



/s/    Steven E. EnglishSteven E. EnglishChief Financial OfficerNovember 3, 2010


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to State Auto Financial Corporation and will be retained by State Auto Financial Corporation and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 99.12**

 

**CONSENT OF ROBERT CANN**

 

I, Robert Cann, P.Geo, Vice President, Exploration of Entrée Gold Inc., hereby consent to (a) being named, including as an expert or “qualified person,” in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Sandstorm Gold, Ltd. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012 and any amendments thereto (the “Annual Report “) being filed with United States Securities and Exchange Commission, which Annual Report incorporates by reference and attaches as an exhibit the Sandstorm Gold Ltd. Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2012 (the “AIF”) and (b) the inclusion in the Annual Report of technical information relating to the Entrée JV Project from the AIF.

 

Date: February 18, 2013

 
|   | /s/ Robert Cann                    |
|--------|------------------------------------|
|   | Name:  Robert   Cann, P. Geo  |
|   | Title: Vice President, Exploration |

 

1

----
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 19

- 00437

- CR

Jerson Ramiro Sanchez, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 119TH DISTR ICT COURT OF TOM GRE EN COUNTY NO. B

- 17

- 0650

- SA, TH E HONORABLE JAY K. W EATHERBY, JUDGE PRES I DING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM Appellant’s brief on appeal was originally due October 11, 2019 . On counsel’s
motion s , the time for filing was extended to January 9, 2020 . Appellant’s counsel has now filed

a fourth motion, requesting that the Court exte nd the time for filing appellant’s brief. We grant the motion for extension of time and order appellant to file a brief no later than March 9, 2020.
No further extension of time wi ll be granted and failure to comply with this order will r esult in
the refe r ral of this case to the trial court for a hearing under Rule 38.8(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
It is ordered on March 4, 2020

.

Before Chie f Justice Rose, Justices Baker and Triana
Do Not Pub lish
Before the Second Division,

February 7, 1961

No. 65142.

#### Ringler-Dorin, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/6273 (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

There being nothing before the court tending in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the classification by the collector, the protest was overruled.
No. 61036.

protest 273106-K (New York).

#### R. J. Saunders & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

*360Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise described on the invoice as nylon gears consists of manufactures wholly or in chief value of any product of which any synthetic resin or resinlike substance is the chief binding agent, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: lane@nlchurch.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:22:51 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,

Lane Payne

Abbeville, LA 70510
Exhibit 32.2



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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q of BJs Wholesale Club, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended July 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Frank D. Forward, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.



|                       |  |  |  |                                         
|---------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------
|                       |  | 
|Dated: August 17, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/    FRANK D. FORWARD                 
|                       |  |  |  | Frank D. Forward Chief Financial Officer
No. 62232.

#### John A. Steer Company *v.*United States,

protests 313776-K, 316215-K, and 316970-K (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of sponges similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 61191, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.