alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: gautrea2@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:18:11 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,

Linda Gautreaux

Denham Springs, LA 70706
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, 2004 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    
|Chief Executive Officer
|November 15, 2004      



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.
From: familystory2@aristotle.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:17:20 PM

Hi,

I am writing today to ask that you please consider upholding the freedom of healthcare providers &

pharmacies to provide the services they feel are healthiest for their patients/clients as well as their

communities.

Abortions and certain contraceptives, such as the "abortion pill," will be available in many places for

those who would like to use them. We should not force healthcare providers to sell things they feel are

damaging or harmful - any more than we should require grocery store chains to provide a certain

foods.

Those who want those provisions still have a choice: go to an alternative provider. Their freedom is in

tact; please make sure the freedom of healthcare providers remain protected as well.

Thank you for taking the time to read this message. I am sure you will sincerely consider what is

honorable and just.

Melissa Brawner

Benton, AR

Sincerely,

Melissa Brawner

Benton, AR 72019
0124 

Cherry 

, J. 

A writ of mandamus is the appropriate vehicle for challenging 

a district court order denying a motion to disqualify a judge. Towbin 

Dodge, LLC v. Dist. Ct.,121 Nev. 251, 254-55, 112 P.3d 1063, 1066 (2005). 

Having reviewed this petition and the supporting documents, we are not 

persuaded that the district court's order warrants reversal. Accordingly, 

petitioner has not demonstrated that our intervention by way of 

extraordinary relief is warranted, NRAP 21(b)(1); Smith,107 Nev. at 677, 

818 P.2d at 851, and we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 1 

e-6,7t1. 

Hardesty 

' J. 

Parraguirre 

cc: Hon. Patrick Flanagan, District Judge 

Carl M. Hebert 

Lemons, Grundy & Eisenberg 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

'We express no opinion regarding the district court's discovery and 

summary judgment orders. In light of this order, we deny petitioner's 

March 28, 2013, motion for a temporary stay. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 49?0 

2
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 29, 2011

d0321 

# Order

March 29, 2011

141842

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141842 COA: 298158 Genesee CC: 04-013837-FC MALCOLM ERIC LANG, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 8, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered , and it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
No. 60175.

protests 266392-K, etc. (New York).

#### Frankenthaler Ribbons, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of elastic fabrics similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 59734, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 357 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 357

Supporting the goals and ideals of the Intermediate Space Challenge in 
                          Mojave, California.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 1, 2007

 Mr. McCarthy of California submitted the following resolution; which 
          was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Supporting the goals and ideals of the Intermediate Space Challenge in 
                          Mojave, California.

Whereas the Intermediate Space Challenge in Mojave, California, is a program 
        designed to capture the imagination of youths regarding outer space;
Whereas the aspiration of the Intermediate Space Challenge is to introduce, 
        instill, and energize youths' interest in the engineering, mathematics, 
        and science career fields;
Whereas the Intermediate Space Challenge focuses on 4th, 5th, and 6th grade 
        students during their formative years;
Whereas the Intermediate Space Challenge provides students the opportunity to 
        visit the Mojave Air and Space Port, a 3,300 acre flight research 
        center;
Whereas aviation legends such as Burt Rutan and Mike Melvill of SpaceShipOne 
        fame have worked with and spoken to students participating in the 
        program;
Whereas the Intermediate Space Challenge enables students to work together in a 
        team environment to choose a team name, create team banners, craft an 
        essay, and develop and use their math and science skills to construct 
        and launch a small rocket under appropriate supervision; and
Whereas the program judges student rocket teams on banner designs, essays, and 
        rocket construction and performance: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the goals and ideals of the Intermediate Space 
        Challenge;
            (2) commends the volunteers who run the Intermediate Space 
        Challenge and the Mojave Air and Space Port for opening its 
        facility to the young leaders of the future in the science and 
        engineering fields; and
            (3) encourages teachers and school administrators across 
        the country to implement similar programs to stimulate students 
        and infuse them with a love of engineering, mathematics, and 
        science.
                                 <all>
```
No. 350, Misc.

#### Reece *v.*Rhay, Penitentiary Superintendent, et al.

Supreme Court of Washington. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with the  Annual  Report  of  KRYPTIC  ENTERTAINMENT  INC.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2010,  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Shan
Qiang, President, CEO and Secretary Treasurer of the Company,  certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C.  1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

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

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


                         /s/ Shan Qiang
                         -------------------------------------------------------
Date: June 3, 2010       Shan Qiang
                         President, CEO, Secretary Treasurer and Director
                         (Principal Executive, Accounting and Financial Officer)
No. 63786.

protests 960004-G, etc. (New York).

#### Julius Wile Sons & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### Joseph ORTIZ, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 04-8008.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 15, 2005.

Decided Aug. 25, 2005.

*220Joseph Ortiz, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Ortiz, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable, and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ortiz has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Motion for Extension of Time (First)

PAGE 0

IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0250

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

RONALD L. GOLAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER 

Upon consideration of Defendant and Appellant’s Motion For Extension Of 

Time (First), and with good cause shown, Defendant and Appellant Ronald Golas

is hereby granted an extension of time until September 6, 2024 in which to prepare, 

file and serve Defendant and Appellant’s reply brief.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 6 2024

08/06/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0250
btzo_ex41.htm


EXHIBIT 4.1


 


 





 




  





1











  






 





 




  





2











  






 





 


 


3
From: vmyoder5@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:23:05 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,

Marilyn Yoder

Mills River, NC 28759
H. Res. 388

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

May 10, 2007.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 

the bill (H.R. 2082) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 

year 2008 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of 

the United States Government, the Community Management 

Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and 

Disability System, and for other purposes. The first reading 

of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 

consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under 

clause 9 of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the 

bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. After general 

debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 

five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute 
2

•HRES 388 EH 

rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in 

the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 

points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived except those arising under 

clause 9 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule 

XVIII, no amendment to the committee amendment in the 

nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 

in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 

resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 

order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 

designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be 

debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided 

and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not 

be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the 

Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 

amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 

or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of the 

bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 

bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 

adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the 

House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 

Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the na-
3

•HRES 388 EH 

ture of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 

passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

SEC. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 2082 

pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 

the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated by the 

Speaker. 

Attest:

Clerk.
3. PUBLIC INTEREST

Authorizing Skanska USA Civil to conduct com mercial operations using sUAS under the conditions specified herein would bring immediate and significant safety improvement to the mining, construction, energy an d other
industries.

Conventional construction and mining inspect ions require human beings to visually observe and a nalyze the physical status of various equipment and surroundin g conditions. The eBee sUAS can inspect, photograph , and collect data on hard to get to areas that otherwise would require a worker inspection or are inaccessi ble. Falls are the leading source of workplace fatality and injury on sites and reducing falls through sUAS use for s ite imaging could save workers lives. Additionally, sUAS could replace the use of manned aircraft to monitor sites . The sUAS we propose to fly in this application are less than five pounds, and carry no combustible material on board, as opposed to the much larger conventionally powered s mall aircraft. Shifting to sUAS from manned aircraf t is a marked safety increase for our workers and the publ ic. Lastly, sUAS reduce the environmental impact by dramatically decreasing the energy used for aerial imaging and data collection over a project. The sUA S use rechargeable lithium ion batteries, as opposed to f ossil fuels burned in operation of small aircraft t hat are many
hundreds of times heavier.

4. CONCLUSION

This request is designed to follow up on previous e fforts by the Federal Aviation Administration to determine equivalent levels of safety for sUAS o perations. By requesting a summary grant of exemption we hope to achieve expedited approval for sUAS operations to the public’s benefit.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Deveney GPS systems Manager 1995 Agua Mansa Road Riverside, Ca 92509
Skanska USA Civil
#### Christopher LAWRENCE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. WESTINGHOUSE SAVANNAH RIVER COMPANY LLC, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-1506.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 18, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 23, 2005.

Christopher Lawrence, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Franklin Thompson, Jr., Malone, Thompson & Summers, L.L.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Lawrence appeals a district court judgment adopting a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, granting summary judgment to Westinghouse Savannah River Company LLC and dismissing Lawrence’s complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and affirm for the reasons cited by the district court. *See Lawrence v. Westinghouse,*No. CA-03-484-RBH (D.S.C. Apr. 4, 2005). We deny Lawrence’s motion to strike the Appellee’s informal brief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
From: katrinajeter@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:10:25 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,

Katrina Jeter

Anacoco, LA 71403