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

House Calendar No. 22 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 219 

[Report No. 110–34] 

Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 202) providing for 

the expenses of certain committees of the House of Representatives 

in the One Hundred Tenth Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 7, 2007 

Ms. SLAUGHTER, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 202) 

providing for the expenses of certain committees of the 

House of Representatives in the One Hundred Tenth 

Congress. 

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution 

2 it shall be in order without intervention of any point of 

3 order to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 

4 202) providing for the expenses of certain committees of 

5 the House of Representatives in the One Hundred Tenth 

6 Congress. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

HRES 219 RH 

1 recommended by the Committee on House Administration 

2 now printed in the resolution, modified by the amendment 

3 printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accom4 panying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. 

5 The resolution, as amended, shall be considered as read. 

6 The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 

7 the resolution, as amended, to final adoption without in8 tervening motion or demand for division of the question 

9 except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and con10 trolled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 

11 the Committee on House Administration; and (2) one mo12 tion to recommit which may not contain instructions. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 22 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 219 

[Report No. 110

–34] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. 

the One Hundred Tenth Congress. committees of the House of Representatives in Res. 202) providing for the expenses of certain 

MARCH 7, 2007 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
EXHIBIT 13.1

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 on Form 20-F of Safe Bulkers, Inc. (the Company) for
the fiscal year ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned officer
of the Company certifies 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 as of, and
for, the periods presented in the report.

The foregoing
certification is provided solely for purposes of complying with the provisions
of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not intended to be used
or relied upon for any other purpose.

|                         |                                      | 
|------------------------ | ------------------------------------ | 
|Date:
 February 23, 2010 |                                      | 
|                         |                                      | 
|                         | /s/ POLYS HAJIOANNOU                 | 
|                         | Polys Hajioannou                     | 
|                         | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer | 
|                         | (Principal Executive Officer)        | 

Exhibit 13.1

---
COUNTRYWIDE
      HOME LOANS LogoFebruary
      27, 2009
            400
      Countrywide Way
              Simi
      Valley, California 93065-6298














LaSalle
Bank N.A.


Attn:
Andy Leszcznski


135 S.
LaSalle Street, Suite 1511


Chicago,
IL 60603











OFFICER’S
CERTIFICATE








I, Joseph
Candelario, hereby certify that I am an officer of Countrywide GP, LLC, general
partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP (the “Servicer”). I further
certify, with respect to the applicable servicing agreement relating to the
securitization transactions(s) set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto (the
“Servicing Agreement”) that:





(a)                 A
review of the activities of the Servicer during the preceding calendar year and
of the performance of the Servicer under the Servicing Agreement has been made
under my supervision; and





(b)                 To
the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all
of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects
throughout such year.

















/s/ Joseph
Candelario                                                      February 27,
2009


Joseph
Candelario


First
Vice President


Compliance
Officer


Loan
Administration





























Exhibit
A – Securitized Taransaction(s)


LaSalle
Bank N.A.










BAFC
2008-1
## BOSCH, KUHR, DUGDALE, MARTIN & KAZE , PLLP A Professiona l Li m i te d Li abi l i t y Pa rt ne rs h i p BURTO N 0. BOSC H ( 1 93 1 -2007) JOHN B
. KU H R ( 19 3 1-2003) BRADL EY E
. DUGDAL E RONALD MARTIN (1937-1998) JAMES M. KAZE ATIORNE Y S A ND COUN SE LORS 335 FOURTH AV E N UE KEITH A
. MARIST UEN BRIAN LI L LETVEDT STE P HEN R. BROW N MARY A N N MOOG GLE NN G. MAC L EOD JAMI E N
. BEDWE L L



### Office of the Chief Counsel Attn : FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk AGC-600 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Ave
. SW Washington , DC 20591 P.O. BOX 7 1 52 HAV RE, MO NTA NA 59501



### February 23, 2016 T EL EPH O N E ( 406) 265-6706
TELEFAX N U MBER (406) 265- 7578
E - MA I L b l illetvedt@bkdl aw.org



### RE: Safer Medical of Montana, Inc. and George Ackerson v . City of Fort Benton, Montana, Chouteau County, Montana, and Chouteau County Joint Airport Board FAA Docket No. 16-15-12 To Whom it 

### May Concern : COMES NOW Re spondent , City of Fort Benton , Montana by and through its counsel of record , pursuant to 14 C
. F
. R. 

### § 16.19(e) and moves for an ex tension of time to file its Answer to the Complaint until Monday, February 29 , 2016. Said Motion is based upon the grounds and for the reasons that Counsel for the Respondent, City of Fort Benton is dealing with a recent medical issue requiring him to be away from his offi ce . Counsel for Respondent , City of Fort Benton , has contacted Counsel for Safer Medical of Montana and Counsel for Chouteau County Montana and Chouteau County Airport Board and advised them of this Motion
. Counsel for Safer Medical of Montana and Counsel for Chouteau County Montana and Chouteau County Airport Board have no objection to the Motion for an e x tension of time
. For th e above stated reasons and without objection from oppos i ng couns e l , Respondent , City of Fort Benton, request this Motion be granted. Sincerely ,

# ~~ Brian ffi etvedt
. Attorney for the City of Fort BentonOffice ofthe Chi efCounsel FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk FAA Do cket No. 16-15-1 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing Respondent City of Fort Benton, Montana's Motion for E xtension of Time to File Answer on the following persons at the following addresses or email addresses by electronic mail: Adrian A. Miller Holland & Hart LLP 401 North31 51 St. Suite 1500 P.O
. Box 639 Billings, MT 591 03 - 0639 AAMiller@hollandhart.com Mitchell A. Young 2717 Skyway Drive , Suite F Helena , MT 59602 myoung@mtcounties.org Office of the Chief Counsel FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk, AGC- 600 Fed e ral Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20591 9-AWA-AGC-Part-16@faa.gov Dated th is 23 rd day of February , 20 1 6.

Em il y Hars an For the City of Fort Benton
From: hlrundle@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:34:40 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,

Herman Rundle

Orange, CA 92868
No. P67/77.

No. P67/78.

#### Morris Friedman *v.*United States,

protest 60/31225 (Philadelphia).

#### Acme Venetian Blind & Window Shade Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 65/7482, etc. (New York).

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of Philippine *874mahogany sticks or slats similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Acme Venetian Blind da Window Shade Corp.*v. *United States*(56 Cust. Ct. 563, C.D. 2704), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: davidlholli@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:22:40 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,

David Hollingsworth

Lexington, KY 40502
Case No. 10,200.

#### In re NEW YORK KEROSENE OIL CO.

[The case reported under above title in 3 N. B. R. 125 (Quarto, 31), is the same as Case No. 7,726.]
From: jsmschroeder@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:20:36 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 Schroeder

Minneapolis, MN 55434
2
- 3
- 2015

U. S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey

Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 Re: Amendment to Exemption 11066 issued pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations in Regulatory Docket No. FAA
- 2014
- 0353
- 0001
. Dear Sir or Madam; Aerial MOB llc was issued an Exemption numbered 11066 (hereinafter the Exemption) for the purpose of conducting scripted, closed
- set filming for the motion picture and television industry . Aerial MOB llc herb y requests an amendment to the Exemption to allow an additional ty pe of unmanned aircraft system (UAS) that fully complies with the c onditions of the Exemption. Aerial MOB llc wishes to operate a DJ I Phantom2 under the same terms and conditions contained in the Exemption. Attached hereto, and submitted as a confidential document, is the Flight Operations and Procedures Manual (FOPM ) for the additional UAS. All operations of the additional UAS will be in full compliance with the terms of the Exemption. As this is an amendment to an existing exemption asking for onl y the addition of another ty pe of unmanned aerial vehicle, Aerial M OB llc respectfull y submits that good cause exists so that notice does not need to be published in the Federal Register for the requested amendment. Please contact the undersigned should you have any question concerning this request for an amendment to the Exemption. Sincerel y yours, Tony Carmean
cc: James Williams Robert Pappas Jake Troutman John McGraw Jonathan B. Hill
No. 169, Misc.

#### Ruberto *v.*New York.

Court of Appeals of New York. Certiorari denied.
****Exhibit32.2** **CertificationPursuant to****18U.S.C. §1350,****AsAdopted Pursuant to****Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002** Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of InfoTech USA, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, J. Robert Patterson,Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Director of the Company,certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adoptedpursuant 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/ J.Robert PattersonJ. RobertPatterson, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,Treasurerand Director Date: May13, 2005**
#### Thomas L. GROEBER, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 00-3210.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 8, 2001.

Before MAYER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges.

Judgment

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

*974
      *AFFIRMED. See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
Before the Third Division,

August 27, 1959

No. 63320.

protests 316405-K/14951, etc. (New Orleans).

#### United China & Glass Co. *v.*United States,

*329Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial, it was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise are similar to those the subject of Abstract 61923 and that other items, if now before the collector for classification, would be properly dutiable, as claimed. In view of the stipulation, the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (1) Protest 316405-K, bisque boxes and lids, item 5430, contained in cases 1200, 3432, 3481-3483, 3693, and 3694, and item 5394, contained in cases 1213-1219; protest 316407-K, decorated china duct plaques, item 48/5395, contained in eases 3436-3440; and protest 316409-K, decorated china console sets, item 5133, contained in eases 3579-3581, at 50 cents per dozen pieces, but not less than 45 nor more than 70 percent ad valorem, under the provision in paragraph 212, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 51802), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T.D. 51909), for decorated ehinaware, not tableware, not containing 25 percent or more of calcined bone; (2) protest 316406-K, decorated earthenware salt boxes, item 5540, contained in cases 562, 2860, 3484, 4012, and 4013; protest 316411-K, earthenware spoon, fork, and holder sets, item 5082, contained in cases 4528-4530; and protest 316413-K, earthenware relish dishes, item 2753, contained in cases 9781-9783, at 10 cents per dozen pieces and 25 percent ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 211, as modified by T.D. 51802 or by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 52739), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T.D. 52857), for decorated earthenware kitchenware or tableware, valued at $2 or more per dozen pieces; protest 316410-K, Rockingham earthenware cookie jars, item 4734, contained in eases 2790 and 3487-3493, at 20 cents per dozen articles, but not less than 7% nor more than 25 percent ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 210, as modified by T.D. 51802, for Rockingham earthenware; and protest 316412-K, earthenware fruit juice sets, item 47/2515, contained in cases 3061-3065 and 3066-3075, as follows: The tumblers at 10 cents per dozen pieces and 45 percent ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 211, as modified by T.D. 52739, supplemented by T.D. 52857, for decorated earthenware kitchenware or tableware, valued under $2 per dozen pieces, and the covered jug at 10 cents per dozen pieces and 25 percent ad valorem under the provision in said paragraph, as modified by T.D. 51802 or T.D. 52739, supplemented by T.D. 52857 for decorated earthenware kitchenware or tableware, valued at $2 or more per dozen pieces.
From: bmcgavic@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:34:39 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,

ruth mcgavic

Port Charlotte, FL 33954