alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: richardjones32506@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:52:17 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,

Richard Jones

Santa Clarita, CA 91350
From: lifeline2jb@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:34:45 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

jimmy breitsprecher

Bountiful, UT 84010
Exhibit 32.1 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

In connection with the Annual Report of Atlas Resources Public #18-2009 (C) L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Freddie M. Kotek, Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of the General Partner, 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 operations of the Partnership. |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|                                                                                       |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| /s/ FREDDIE M. KOTEK                                                                  |
| Freddie M. Kotek                                                                      |
| Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of the General Partner |
| September 11, 2015                                                                    |
From: zjm@comporium.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:59:06 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,

Todd Brakefield

Rock Hill, SC 29732
**Exhibit      32.2**

|   |      (1)     The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|   | By:    |  /s/                Roman Livson  |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   |   | Roman                Livson            |
|   |   | Chief                Financial Officer |

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Hugh Knight, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 28]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.), rendered January 5, 1993, convicting him of murder in the second degree (three counts), attempted murder in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The consistent and credible testimony of the People’s key witnesses placed the defendant as the initial ag*458gressor in an exchange of gunfire which fatally injured three victims and seriously injured another *(see, People v Rattley,*148 AD2d 642, 643). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

Under the circumstances, the consecutive sentences were not excessive.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                              11
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        3
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    14
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      14
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               76
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                        (50)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        14
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      123
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (123)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (123)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (123)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00
        

</TABLE>
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 of Digital Insight Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul J. Pucino, 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 results of operation of the Company.



|                                                                   
|-------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                   
|/s/ Paul J. Pucino                                                 
|Paul J. Pucino                                                     
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer August 7, 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.
From: mercimoulder@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

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

Merci Moulder

Westfield, IN 46074
Before the First Division,

February 21, 1962

No. 66476.

#### Joseph Markovits, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 59/32890, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bridal headdresses similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Novik & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(45 Cust. Ct. 183, C.D. 2221), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
| **Loans and Allowance for Loan Losses (Unfunded Commitment) (Details) (USD $)In Millions, unless otherwise specified** |        |        | 3 Months Ended |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|----------------|
||
| **Unfunded Commitments [Line Items]**                                                                                  |   |   |           |
| Expected usage percentage of remaining unfunded commitments                                                            |   |   | 10.00%         |
| Reserve for unfunded commitments                                                                                       | $ 0.8  | $ 0.5  |           |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Expected usage percentage of unfunded commitments to lend.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**cob_LoansAndLeasesReceivableUnfundedCommitmentsExpectedUsagePercentage**Namespace Prefix:**cob_**Data Type:**num:percentItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
The amount of reserve for unfunded commitments for which the entity is obligated, to lend.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**cob_LoansAndLeasesReceivableUnfundedCommitmentsReserve**Namespace Prefix:**cob_**Data Type:**xbrli:monetaryItemType**Balance Type:**credit**Period Type:**instant |
| X                                                                                                                                                        |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**cob_UnfundedCommitmentsLineItems**Namespace Prefix:**cob_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

DONNA JOHNSTONE,

Petitioner

v.

ROBERT JOHNSTONE,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 73 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 16th day of July, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
M A N D A T E

TO THE 120TH DISTRICT COURT OF EL PASO COUNTY, GREETINGS: Before our Court of Appeals for the Eighth District of Texas, on July 17, 2020, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

ALEX MONTELONGO, Appellant, No. 08-18-00093-CR and

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee, was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words: The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no reversible error in the judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified below for observance. WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Eighth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed and executed. WITNESS, the Clerk of the Court of Appeals, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of El Paso, this April 23, 2021. Elizabeth G. Flores, Clerk

Trial Court No. 20150D02910
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification of CFO 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 Ambac Financial Group, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2010, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), David Trick, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

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

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



| |  |                                                                       
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ David Trick                                                       
| |  | Name: David Trick                                                     
| |  | Title: Senior Managing Director,
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
| |  | Date: August 9, 2010