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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

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

Stephen Spence

Decatur, IL 62521
No. P68/484.

protests 64/10198 and 63/11385 (Los Angeles).

#### The May Dept. Stores Company *v.*United States,

Newman, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of rainwear similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Weather-Rite Sportswear Co., Inc.*(52 CCPA *7,*C.A.D. 848), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: fht3339@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:53:46 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,

Floyd Taylor

Wausaukee, WI 54177
IV 

House Calendar No. 45 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 332 

[Report No. 110–110] 

Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill 

(H.R. 1591) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal 

year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 24, 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 conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 1591) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it 

2 shall be in order to consider the conference report to ac3 company the bill (H.R. 1591) making emergency supple4 mental appropriations for the fiscal year ending Sep5 tember 30, 2007, and for other purposes. All points of 

6 order against the conference report and against its considVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:35 Apr 24, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR332.RH HR332

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

HRES 332 RH 

1 eration are waived. The conference report shall be consid2 ered as read. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 45 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 332 

[Report No. 110

–110] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the conference report 

purposes. year ending September 30, 2007, and for other gency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal to accompany the bill (H.R. 1591) making emerAPRIL 24, 2007 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
No. 69829.

protests 64/3330-13771, etc. (Chicago).

#### Engis Equipment Company *v.*United States,

*891Opinion by

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of diamond files, over 2% inches but not over 4% inches in length, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *J. E. Bernard & Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(52 Cust. Ct. 56, C.D. 2436), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00606-CR

PRISCILLA PENA APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 211TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Priscilla Pena filed a notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s 

November 17, 2013 order recommending to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

that relief on her October 2013 postconviction application for writ of habeas 

corpus be denied.

2

 In the meantime, as required under article 11.07 of the code 

 1

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2

See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, §§ 3, 5 (West Supp. 2013).
2

of criminal procedure, the trial court clerk transmitted Appellant’s application and 

the trial court’s order to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which denied 

habeas relief.3

We sent Appellant a letter notifying her of our concern that we lack 

jurisdiction over this appeal from a postconviction order and indicating that this 

appeal could be dismissed absent a response from Appellant or any party 

showing grounds for jurisdiction. We have received no response.

We generally have jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal 

defendant only from a judgment of conviction.4

 We do not have jurisdiction over 

a postconviction application for writ of habeas corpus in a felony case.5

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

 3

See id.

4

See McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 

1996, no pet.).

5

Ex parte Wall, 2012 WL 5869595, at *9 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 21, 

2012, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citations omitted); see 

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 5; Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 

S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding) (stating that the 

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is the “only court with jurisdiction in final postconviction felony proceedings”).
3

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: May 1, 2014
Before the Second Division,

July 10, 1957

No. 61032.

protests 276478-K, etc. (New York).

#### Keuffel & Esser Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to the boxes the subject of Abstract 59557, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany, for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department.

Lily Yee Lee Chow, Toronto, Canada, respondent pro se.

Motion by respondent for an order reinstating her to the practice of law following her suspension by May 2019 order of this Court (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a, 172 AD3d 1706, 1716 [2019]; see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16; Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16).

Upon reading respondent's notice of motion and affidavit with exhibits sworn to July 24, 2019, and upon reading the September 19, 2019 correspondence in response from the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, and having determined, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) respondent has complied with the order of suspension and the Rules of this Court, (2) respondent has the requisite character and fitness to practice law, and (3) it would be in the public interest to reinstate respondent to the practice of law (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Zerdan], 173 AD3d 1602, 1603 [2019]; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Serbinowski], 164 AD3d 1049, 1050 [2018]), it is

ORDERED that respondent's motion for reinstatement is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law, effectively immediately.

Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Clark, Devine and Aarons, JJ., concur.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60592

JOHNSTON-TOMBIGBEE FURNITURE

MANUFACTURING CO., INC.,

Plaintiff - Appellee - Cross-Appellant,

versus

NORTHBROOK PROPERTY & CASUALTY

INSURANCE CO.,

Defendant - Appellant - Cross-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

(1:95-CV-142-S-D)

July 11, 1997

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*
2

This matter is before the court on the appeal of Northbrook Property &

Casualty Company of an adverse judgment on a jury verdict and the cross-appeal

of Johnston-Tombigbee Furniture Manufacturing Company, Inc. Having

considered the briefs, oral arguments of counsel, and pertinent parts of the record,

and finding no reversible error, the judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MARCH 31,
1997.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          23,400
<SECURITIES>                                     2,502
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,842
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      7,835
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                51,547
<PP&E>                                           5,158
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  56,744
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,236
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           140
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,368
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    56,744
<SALES>                                         60,470
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                60,470
<CGS>                                           53,657
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   53,657
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,311
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,498)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,498)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,498)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.18)
        

</TABLE>
From: amywilliams.pt@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:45:13 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,

Amy Williams

Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 28, 2024

NO. 03

- 23

- 00372

- CV

Tae Hollenbeck , Appellant

v.

Extra Space Properties Two, LLC , Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF BELL COUNTY
BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES SMITH AND THEOFANIS

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on June 14, 2023

. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s judgment

. Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s judgment

. Because

appellant is indigent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is made.
No. P67/255.

#### William Adams, Inc. *v.*United States, protest 66/4067 (New York).

Oliver, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of various decorated *873glassware items similar in all material respects to those the subject of *William*Adams, *Inc.*v. *United States*(56 Cust. Ct. 429, C.D. 2670), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 32.01

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of State Auto Financial Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ending March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert P. Restrepo, Jr., 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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/    Robert P. Restrepo, Jr.Robert P. Restrepo, Jr.Chief Executive OfficerMay 5, 2010


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to State Auto Financial Corporation and will
be retained by State Auto Financial Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
From: irwin.umali@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:36:05 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,

Irwin Umali

Los Angeles, CA 90012
##### 



EXHIBIT 32 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 Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Seth R. Johnson, the Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, and Gerald M. Chaney, the 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:  (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:
June 1, 2005
    
    /s/ SETH R. JOHNSONSeth R. JohnsonChief Executive OfficerPacific Sunwear of California, Inc.(Principal Executive Officer)Dated:
June 1, 2005
    
    /s/ GERALD M. CHANEYGerald M. ChaneySenior Vice Presidentand Chief Financial OfficerPacific Sunwear of California, Inc.(Principal Financial Officer)
 This certification accompanies this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed
filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Pacific
Sunwear of California, Inc. and will be retained by Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.