alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 406 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         June 18, 2007.
Whereas 35 years ago, on June 23, 1972, the Education Amendments of 1972 
        containing title IX was signed into law by the President;
Whereas Representatives Patsy T. Mink and Edith Green led the successful fight 
        in Congress to pass this legislation;
Whereas title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in the 
        administration of any education program receiving Federal financial 
        assistance;
Whereas remarkable gains have been made to ensure equal opportunity for women 
        and girls under the inspiration and mandate of title IX;
Whereas title IX serves as the nondiscrimination principle in education;
Whereas title IX has moved this Nation closer to the fulfillment of access and 
        opportunities for women and girls in all aspects of life;
Whereas title IX has increased educational opportunities for women and girls, 
        resulting in improved graduation rates, increased access to professional 
        schools and nontraditional fields of study, and improved employment 
        opportunities;
Whereas title IX has increased opportunities for women and girls in sports, 
        leading to greater access to competitive sports, and building strong 
        values such as teamwork, leadership, discipline, work ethic, self-
        sacrifice, pride in accomplishment, and strength of character;
Whereas on October 29, 2002, title IX was named the ``Patsy Takemoto Mink Equal 
        Opportunity in Education Act'' in recognition of Representative Mink's 
        heroic, visionary, and tireless leadership in developing and winning 
        passage of title IX; and
Whereas 35 years of progress under title IX is widely acknowledged, but because 
        women continue to earn less for work than men with the same educational 
        background; sexual harassment remains pervasive in schools and on 
        college campuses; women and girls face substantial barriers in pursuing 
        high-wage fields such as science, technology, engineering, and math; and 
        women and girls' sports teams do not receive an equal share of 
        resources, including fewer recruiting and scholarship dollars at the 
        college level; and athletic participation opportunities still lag behind 
        those provided for men, there is still much work to be done if the 
        promise of title IX is to be fulfilled: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives celebrates--
            (1) the accomplishments of title IX of the Education Amendments of 
        1972, also known as the Patsy Takemoto Mink Equal Opportunity in 
        Education Act, in increasing opportunities for women and girls in all 
        facets of education; and
            (2) the magnificent accomplishments of women and girls in sports.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
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 Quarterly Report of Digital Insight Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jeffrey E. Stiefler, 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 operation of the Company.



|                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                            
|/s/ Jeffrey E. Stiefler                                     
|Jeffrey E. Stiefler                                         
|Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive
Officer
|November 9, 2006                                            

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Digital Insight and will be retained by Digital Insight and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR HOOVER'S INC., FOR THE THREE
MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          41,818
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,243
<ALLOWANCES>                                       499
<INVENTORY>                                        100
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                49,026
<PP&E>                                           8,503
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,457
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  84,744
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,002
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           156
<OTHER-SE>                                      67,555
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    84,744
<SALES>                                          7,518
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,518
<CGS>                                            3,648
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,855
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   695
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  40
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,988)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,988)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,988)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.47)


</TABLE>
From: bvcurrier@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:13:50 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,

Robert Currier

Orangevale, CA 95662
No. 69226.

#### O’Browne & Co., Ltd., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 63/18841, etc. (Los Angeles).

*386Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of rayon labels similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Bruce Duncan Co., Inc., a/c Standard Commodities Import & Export Corp.*v. *United States*(51 Cust. Ct. 27, C.D. 2409), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: rpaterson@cpmodesto.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:12:12 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,

Ross Paterson

Modesto, CA 95350
##### 



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
  (i)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.
 Dated:  December 4, 2006
    /s/  SALLY FRAME KASAKSSally Frame KasaksInterim Chief Executive Officer
Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc.
(Principal Executive Officer)Dated:  December 4, 2006
    /s/  GERALD M. CHANEYGerald M. ChaneySenior Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer
Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc.
(Principal Financial Officer)
EXHIBIT 99.5


                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                      -------------------------------------



I, Jeffrey G. Webb,  President and Chief  Executive  Officer of Varsity  Brands,
Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

1)   the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period
     ended September 30, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the
     requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
     1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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: November 14, 2002                                 /s/ Jeffrey G. Webb
                                                         President
                                                         Chief Executive Officer
From: bootsb38@centurylink.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

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

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Mary Brown

Washington, NC 27889
From: awrasman@enchanted.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:09:50 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,

Aaron Wrasman

Cordova, TN 38016
TELEPHONE CONTACT SUMMARY 

Brick and Structural Clay Products 

FROM: Thomas Holloway 

 RTI International 

DATE OF CONTACT: July 16, 2013 

ORGANIZATION CONTACTED: 

W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc. 

555 Paper Mill Road 

Newark , DE 19711 

Website: http://www.gore.com/en_xx/industries/environment/environment.html 

PERSON CONTACTED: 

Chris Polizzi 

(410) 506-3529 

PURPOSE OF CONTACT: 

For information on: 

• The feasibility of installing just a stand-alone fabric filter (rather than a fabric filter with dry lime 

injection that is more typically employed in the brick industry) to control particulate emissions 

from brick kilns that are already expected to meet acid gas (HF, HCl) emission limits. 

• The validity of the brick industry’s concerns that: (1) without the dry lime injection that reduces 

the acid gas, there won’t be enough particulates in the kiln exhaust to coat the bags and get 

good performance from the fabric filter; (2) the uncontrolled acid in the exhaust stream could 

rot the bags; (3) the exhaust gas temperatures from brick kilns are too high (nearly 400°F on 

average, as high as 668°F); and (4) membrane bags may not be appropriate for low inlet 

loadings. 

• Any difference in bag type and bag cost based on whether or not dry lime injection is employed. 

SUMMARY OF CONTACT: 

I contacted W. L. Gore & Associates on July 10 through their website inquiring about the issues cited 

above and received a response by phone from Mr. Polizzi of W. L. Gore on July 16. He noted that the 

company had done business with the brick industry before and that they have two kinds of bags that 

could be used for the industry: (1) high-temperature fiberglass bags, and (2) high-temperature PTFE 

(Teflon) bags. Both are rated to 500°F. He indicated that a ceramic style bag would be needed for 

temperatures above 500°F. He couldn’t speak to the concern regarding PM loading, but did say that 

there would be no problem with PM loadings as low as 1 to 2 grains per cubic foot. He noted that HF 

destroys fiberglass, so PTFE bags would be needed if HF emissions are a concern. He noted that PTFE 

bags, unlike fiberglass bags, are chemically inert, but are very expensive, about 2 to 5 times more 

expensive than fiberglass. He also noted that PTFE bags have high chemical and thermal resistance and 

would control PM but not acid gas.
To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:13:34 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,

Debra Blackburn

Savannah, GA 31410
From: amnhchrn@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:52:55 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,

Abigail Nobel

Dorr, MI 49323