alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Aug 12 2010

Mr. Santi Lombardo Vice President of Flight Operations

Pinnacle Airlines, Inc.

1689 Nonconnah Boulevard Memphis, TN 38132

Dear Mr. Lombardo:

We have received your August 3, 2010, correspondence withdrawing your July 16, 2010, petition for exemption.

Your letter has been placed in the public docket (No. FAA-2010-0730). No further action will be taken on your petition.

Sincerely,

/s/ Ida M. Klepper Manager, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division
SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

IN THE MATTER OF RESIGNATION OF GREGORY S. COMO, BAR NO. 11089. No. 70198 

# ALE MAY 09 2016

DEP:rCLERK 

### ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RESIGNATION 11 BY
This is a joint petition by the State Bar of Nevada and attorney Gregory S. Como for his resignation from the Nevada bar.

SCR 98(5) provides that Nevada attorneys who are not actively practicing law in this state may resign from the state bar if certain conditions are met. The petition includes statements from state bar staff confirming that no disciplinary, fee dispute arbitration, or client security fund matters are pending against Como; and that he is current on all membership fee payments and other financial commitments relating to his practice of law in this state. 

### See SCR 98(5)(a)(1)-(2).

Bar counsel has recommended that the resignation be approved, and the Board of Governors has approved the application for resignation. 

### See SCR 98(5)(a)(2). Como acknowledges that his resignation is irrevocable and that the state bar retains continuing jurisdiction with respect to matters involving a past member's conduct prior to resignation. 

### See SCR 98(5)(c)-(d). Finally, Como has submitted an affidavit of compliance with SCR 115. 

### See SCR 98(5)(e).

(0) )947A emJ.

J. The petition satisfies the requirements of SCR 98(5). Accordingly, we approve attorney Gregory S. Como's resignation. SCR 98(5)(a)(2). The petition is hereby granted.

It is so ORDERED. 

# C ot_ .J. Parraguirre
J. Hardesty

Saitta 

# gek. J. Pickering
cc: Greg S. Como C. Stanley Hunterton, Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada Perry Thompson, Admissions Officer, U.S. Supreme Court

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A de
From: marilindat@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:56:49 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,

Marilinda Torres

San Antonio, TX 78247
From: bubba22@livingston.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:17:48 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

John Henderson

, 77351-4327
Case No. 14,803.

#### UNITED STATES v. CLARK.

[4 Cranch, C. C. 506.] 1

Circuit Court. District of Columbia.

March Term, 1835.

Justice op Peace—Prosecution for Taking Insufficient Bail—Indictment.

In an indictment against a justice of the peace for taking insufficient bail in a criminal case, it is not necessary to state in what respects the bail was insufficient; nor to set out the security taken: nor to aver that the defendant ordered the offender to be discharged from the arrest. Motion to quash refused.

[Cited in Mattingly r. U. S., Case No. 9.295.]

This was an indictment [against Robert •Clark] for corruptly taking “insufficient security” for the appearance of George Mil-burn, who was arrested on a capias ad re-spondendum. and in custody of the marshal upon an indictment for keeping “a certain .gaming-table called a ‘faro-hank,’ ” against the form of the act of congress of the 2d of March, 1831 (4 Stat. 448), which makes it a ■penitentiary offence, whereby the said George Milburn was released from the custody of the marshal, and escaped: and also by means whereof he did not appear at the said court, •and therein made default, and hath not since appeared to be dealt with according to law, to the great hindrance of public justice. in contempt of the laws, and against the peace and government of the United States.

The counsel for defendant moved the court to quash the indictment: (1) Because it does not state in what respects the security taken was insufficient; whether it was insufficient because the sum was too small, or because the pei-s'ons taken as bail were insufficient to answer the amount of the recognizance, or because the form in which the security was taken was insufficient; and because it does not set out the security taken, so that the court can judge whether it was regularly taken, and in an amount adequate to the of-fence, and in due form. (2) Because it does not aver that the defendant ordered Milburn to be discharged from arrest.

CRANCH. Chief Judge.

Upon comparing this indictment with the form of an indictment for a similar offence in 2 Chit. Cr. Law, 244, the court is of opinion that it is in substance a good indictment, and is sufficiently certain to require the defendant to plead to it. The motion to quash it is, therefore, overruled. The other indictment against the same defendant for taking insufficient security in the ease of Henry Miller, is even more full and formal than the other: and the motion to quash it is also overruled.

THRUSTON. Circuit Judge, not sitting, as he was not present at the argument.
Exhibit
32.1

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

In  connection
with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Sunrise Energy Resources,  Inc. (the Company)
for the period ended September 30, 2005 as  filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the  Report), I, Konstantin Tsirulnikov, President
and 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, 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,
2005

| | By:
 /s/ Konstantin Tsirulnikov
      Konstantin Tsirulnikov
      Chief Executive Officer
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
From: rcarter2u@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:57:31 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 Carter

Ashburn, VA 20147
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of CurrencyShares® Singapore Dollar Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-K for the fiscal period ended October 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Nick Bonos, Chief Executive Officer of Rydex Specialized Products LLC, the Sponsor of the Trust, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, 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 Trust.



|                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------
|Date: January 14, 2011                               
|                                                     
|/s/ NICK BONOS                                       
|Nick Bonos*                                          
|Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)



|* | The Registrant is a trust and Nick Bonos is signing in his capacity as the principal executive officer of Rydex Specialized Products LLC, the Sponsor of the Registrant.
|- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                            5817
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   390
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      47331
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           21862
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             22381
<LOANS>                                         167234
<ALLOWANCE>                                       1750
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  248862
<DEPOSITS>                                      192778
<SHORT-TERM>                                       314
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               1585
<LONG-TERM>                                      30674
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           626
<OTHER-SE>                                       22885
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  248862
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  10436
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 2784
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   150
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 13370
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                5259
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                6475
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             6895
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      282
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 (7)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   4893
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   2568
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        2568
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      2036
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .84
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.33
<LOANS-NON>                                        545
<LOANS-PAST>                                       774
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   1748
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  1593
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      171
<RECOVERIES>                                        46
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 1750
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              1750
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            655
        

</TABLE>
From: Anncolabufo@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

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

Ann Colabufo

Camillus, NY 13031
From: albyoung@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:41:01 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,

Alan Young

South San Francisco, CA 94080
From: maryrose543@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:59:01 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,

Mary Durbin

Sidney, OH 45365