alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: bfennema@ocschools.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:19:01 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,

Beth Fennema

Ontario, CA 91761
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

Peapod, Inc.
Statement Regarding Computation of Net Loss per Share 

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                              THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,    SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
 
                                  1996          1997            1996            1997
                              -----------    -----------     -----------    -----------
<S>                           <C>            <C>             <C>            <C>

Net loss                      $(2,112,000)   $(3,031,000)    $(3,889,000)   $(5,978,000)
                              ===========    ===========     ===========    ===========
 
Weighted average Common
  Shares outstanding           12,526,812     13,433,673      12,526,812     12,982,748
 
Additional shares pursuant
  to SAB 83 computation           279,982        279,982         279,982        279,982
                              -----------    -----------     -----------    -----------
 
Shares used in computing
  pro forma net loss
  per share                    12,806,794     13,713,655      12,806,794     13,262,730
                              ===========    ===========     ===========    ===========
 
Pro forma net loss per
  share                       $     (0.16)   $     (0.22)    $     (0.30)   $     (0.45)
                              ===========    ===========     ===========    ===========
</TABLE>


Note: The pro forma net loss per share is computed assuming the Conversion 
      occurred at January 1, 1996.
No. 59220.

Suit 4806.

#### United States *v.*Nelson Bead Co.

A. R. D. 36 affirmed April 28, 1955. C. A. D. 590.
From: joeadolfin@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:25:37 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,

Joe Flaherty

Gaithersburg, MD 20878
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

RICHARD ROY SCOTT,

Plaintiff,

v.

PACIFIC COUNTY,

Defendant.

Case No. MC05-5029-MJP

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Brian A. 

Tsuchida, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 137), Plaintiff’s Reply to Response re: New 

Complaint (Dkt. No. 138), and the remaining record, finds and ORDERS as follows:

1. The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED;

2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 132) is DENIED;

3. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this Order to pay the $350 filing fee. 

If plaintiff does not pay the fee, this action will not be permitted to proceed. If 

plaintiff pays the filing fee, plaintiff’s proposed complaint will be reviewed by the 

Chief Judge of the District pursuant to the terms of the April 5, 2005 Order 

Adopting Report and Recommendation. See Scott v. Seling, C04-5147-RJB, Dkt. 

170 at 4 (April 5, 2005).

Case 3:05-mc-05029-MJP Document 139 Filed 12/17/12 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS - 2

4. The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and to Judge Tsuchida.

DATED this _17th_ day of December, 2012.A

Marsha J. Pechman

United States Chief District Judge

Case 3:05-mc-05029-MJP Document 139 Filed 12/17/12 Page 2 of 2
yearID sourceTypeID sourceTypePopulation

2009 11 166

2009 21 2184

2009 31 1588

2009 32 529

2009 41 4

2009 42 2

2009 43 30

2009 51 4

2009 52 137

2009 53 17

2009 54 34

2009 61 67

2009 62 78
**Chang G. Park, CPA, Ph. D.**

**• 2667 CAMINO DEL RIO SOUTH PLAZA B • SAN DIEGO • CALIFORNIA 92108-3707•**

**• TELEPHONE (858)722-5953 • FAX (858) 761-0341 • FAX (858) 433-2979**

**• E-MAIL****changgpark@gmail[dot]com•**

 

 

 

 

 

March 22, 2010

 

***To Whom It May Concern:***

 

The firm of Chang G. Park, CPA consents to the inclusion of our report of February 12, 2010 on the audited financial statements of Secure Window Blinds, Inc. as of December, 2009 and 2008, in any filings that are necessary now or in the near future with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. 

 

 

Very truly yours,

 

/s/Chang G. Park

San Diego, CA

 

 

**Member of the California Society of Certified Public Accountants**

**Registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board**
|   | 1. | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of1934. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Union      National as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the      Report. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By     |  /s/ Mark D. Gainer                                  |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Chairman,      CEO, and President                         |
|   | Date:      August 13, 2010                                |
|   |                                                      |
| By     |  /s/ Michael D.  Peduzzi                             |
|   | Executive      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   | Date:      August 13, 2010                                |

----
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 20-2 Filed 08/25/03 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 20-2 Filed 08/25/03 Page 2 of 2
EPA R eg . N o

. 100

- 895

Vol. 1 part 2
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 66468]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21016]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4720-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]


Vermont; Amendment No. 6 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Vermont (FEMA-4720-DR), dated
    July 14, 2023, and related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued July 26, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Vermont is hereby amended to include the following 
area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration 
of July 14, 2023.

    Orleans County for Individual Assistance (already designated for 
Public Assistance).
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-21016 Filed 9-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
EXHIBIT 31.1  SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D
required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report
on Form 10-K of Hartford Life Global Funding Trust 2008-003 (the
Exchange Act periodic reports);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic
reports;4.
    
    Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required
in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has
fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all
material respects;5.
    
    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
securities required to be included in this report in accordance with
Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rule 13a-18 and 15d-18
have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance
described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
10-K.
    /s/
Kenneth A. McCullum

Kenneth A. McCullumSenior officer in charge of securitizationHartford Life Insurance Company, as depositor
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 Cemtrex, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Arun Govil, 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





(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/ Arun GovilArun GovilChief Executive Officerand Principal Executive OfficerSeptember 8, 2011





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Respondent—Appellee, v. Brian Peter ZATER, Petitioner—Appellant.

No. 04-7929.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 18, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 23, 2005.

Brian Peter Zater, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

*195PER CURIAM:

Brian Peter Zater seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his “Petition for Estoppel in Pais Through Declaratory Injunctive Relief’ as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and dismissing it as successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); *Reid v. Angelone,*369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). 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 both that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *Miller-El v.*Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Zater 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*
From: mwheeler38@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:41:20 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,

Thomas Wheeler

Sahuarita, AZ 85629
**Exhibit      32.1**

|   |      (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.  |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                      |                                                               |                                         |
|-------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|
|                                 |                                                          |                                    |
| Date: November              14, 2008 | By:                                                      | /s/ Konstantin              Tsirulnikov |
|                                      | Konstantin TsirulnikovChief                Executive Officer  |

----
|                                    | Your

are welcome.
|----------------------------------- | --------------------
|Published by U.S. Geological Survey |                     
|small map | medium map | large map 
|                                    |                     
|
From: pastorjoe@grotonag.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:18:12 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Joseph Wright

Cortland, NY 13045