alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:20:26 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 Beuchler

Lancaster, PA 17603
T he H onor abl e R a ne rC . C ol l i ns , U . S . D i s tr i c tJ udge f orthe D i s tr i c tof * A r i z ona , s i tt i ng byde s i gna t i on. NO T F ORP UB L I C AT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T S T E VE N F R AN K J AC KS ON , P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. T. FELK N ER, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 09- 15379 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 7 -cv -0 0 5 5 5 -R JB E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f

C a lif o rn ia , S a c r a m e n to ORDER

O n R em and from the U ni t ed S t at es S up re m e C ou rt Be f o r e : SCH RO ED ER a n dRA W LI N SO N , Ci r c u i tJ u d g e s , a n dCO LLI N S, D i stri ctJudg e. * T h e ju d g m e n t o f

th is c o u rt, Jack

son v. Felkner , 38 9 F ed. A pp x. 64 0 (9th C i r. 2 0 1 0 ) , w a s r e v e r s e db yth e U n ite dS ta te s S u p r e m e C o u rt. See Fe lkne rv . J ac k s on , 13 1 S . C t . 13 05 (201 1). T hi s c as e i s r em anded t o the di stri ctcourtfor f urther p r o c e e d in g s c o n s is te n t w ith th e d e c is io n o f th e S u p r e m e C o u rt. 

# FI LED JAN 12 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JENNIFER A. HERR

, §

§ No. 299 , 201 5

Defendant Below, §

Appellant, § Court Below :

§ Superior Cou rt of the

v. § State of Delaware

§

STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 1401010595

§

Plaintiff Below, §

Appellee. §

Submitted: November 17, 2015

Decided: January 4 , 201 6

Before HOLLAND

, VALIHURA , and VAUGHN

, Justices.

O R D E R

T his 4 th day of January 2016 , upon consideration of the appellant ’ s

brief under Supreme Court Rule 26(c), h er defense counsel’s motion to

withdraw, and the State of Delaware’s response, it appears to the Court that :

(1) On J anuary 7, 2015, a Superior Court jury found the appellant,

Jennifer A. Herr, guilty of F elony Theft and Conspiracy in the Second

Degree. On May 29, 2015, after a presentence investigation, the Superior

Court sentenced Herr to two years at Level V suspended for one year at

Level II probation. This is Herr’s direct appeal.2

( 2 ) On appeal, Her r’s defense counsel has filed a brief and a motion

to withdraw under Supreme Court Rule 26(c). 1 Defense c ounsel asserts that,

based upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no

arguably appealable issues

. Defense counsel represents that he provided

Herr with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief and

informed Herr of h er right to identify any points s he wished this Court to

consider on appeal. Herr did not submit any points for the Cou rt’s

consideration. The State has responded to the Rule 26(c) brief and has

moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment.

( 3 ) W hen reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying

brief under Supreme Court Rule 26(c), th is Court must be satisfied that the

appellant’s defense counsel has made a conscientious examination of the

record and the law for arguable claims. 2 Also, t he Court must conduct its

own review of the record and determine whether “ the appeal is indeed so

frivolous that it may be decided without an adversary presentation.” 3

1 See Del. Supr. Ct. R. 26(c) (governing criminal appeals without merit).

2 Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin , 486

U.S. 429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).

3 Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. at 81.3

( 4 ) In this case, having conducted “a full examination of all the

proceedings” and having found “no nonfrivolous issue for appeal

, ” 4 the

Court concludes that Herr’s appeal “is wholly without merit.” 5 T he Court is

satis fied that Herr’s defense counsel made a conscientious effort to examine

the record and the law and properly determined that Herr could not raise a

meritorious claim on appeal.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to

affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

The motion to withdraw is moot.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice

4 Id. at 80.

5 See supra note 1.
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 29 , 202 4
.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 2 3

- 00 860

- CV

TRAVIS EILAND , Appellant

V. JASON PITRE AND GVCR INVESTMENTS, LLC , Appelle e s

On Appeal from the 344 th District Court Chambers County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 22DCV0155

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This appeal is from a judgment signed May 11 , 202 3

. The reporter’s record was filed December 15, 2023

. The clerk’s record was file d March 7, 2024. No brief was filed even appellant was granted an extension of time to file the brief

. On July 9 , 20 24 , we issued a n order stating that unless appellant filed a brief on or before August 8 , 20 24 , the appeal was subject to dismissal without further notice for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). Appellant was granted2

one further extension of time to August 19, 2024 to file his brief and was further warned that no further extension s would be granted absent exceptional circumstances , but appellant did not file his brief by th at deadline, and he did not file any other response . We dismiss the appeal.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Zimmerer.
<PAGE>



                                                                    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

                             Chief Executive Officer

The undersigned, as the chief executive officer of Allied Healthcare Products,
Inc. (the "Company") does hereby certify for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
that (i) the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Company's fiscal
quarter ending March 31, 2004 (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 30th, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii)
information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of
and for the periods covered in the Report.



                                   s/ Earl R. Refsland
                                   --------------------------------------------
                                      Earl R. Refsland, Chief Executive Officer



                                      April  30, 2004
#### Thomas H. Stringham, Respondent, v. Cornelia M. Stewart, Appellant.

Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Dykman, J.
| **Fair Value Measurements  (Details 3) (Level 2, USD $)In Millions, unless otherwise specified** | Jun. 30, 2013 | Dec. 31, 2012 |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|---------------|
| Level 2                                                                                          |          |          |
| **Fair Value, Assets and Liabilities Measured on Recurring and Nonrecurring Basis**              |          |          |
| Fair value of impaired loans                                                                     | $ 131         | $ 117         |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
The fair value of impaired loans.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**cfsc_FairValueOfImpairedLoans**Namespace Prefix:**cfsc_**Data Type:**xbrli:monetaryItemType**Balance Type:**debit**Period Type:**instant |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**us-gaap_FairValueAssetsAndLiabilitiesMeasuredOnRecurringAndNonrecurringBasisLineItems**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
# Rupprecht Law P. A. 28 11 Grande Parkway, Suite 113 | Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 P: (561) 222 - 6979 | E: jon@jrupprechtlaw.com | W: www.jrupprechtlaw.com September 22 , 2015 U. S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12 - 140, Washington, DC 20590 RE: Receipt of Confidentially Submitted Documents for Elevated Productions, LLC Dear Sir or Madam: Elevated Productions, LLC ( Docket ID: FAA - 2015 - 1693 ) confidentially submitted to 333exemptions@faa.gov the manuals for the assembly and operation of the Cinestar 6 and its flight control ler. A receipt was obtained on Tue, September 22 , 2015 . If I can be of any assistance to further expedite this petition, please do not hesitate to contact me at (561)222 - 6979 or at my email jon@jrupprechtlaw.com Sincerely yours,

_____________________ Jonathan Rupprecht, Esq.
Before the Third Division,

February 17, 1969

No. P69/48.

protest 67/45335 (New York).

#### Heimlich Bros. *v.*United States,

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of Singer sewing-machines which are manufactures of the United States, exported without drawback, and returned without having been advanced in value *1069or improved in condition by any process of manufacture or other means and that the applicable customs regulations have been complied with, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained. *(Bertrand*Freres, *Inc., et. al*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 155, C.D. 2296.)
From: mike@gccfred.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:20:26 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,

Michael Brubaker

Frederick, MD 21703
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 10-Q FOR
THE NINE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             211
<SECURITIES>                                    42,464
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,368
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,938
<PP&E>                                          14,824
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,696)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  57,611
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,207
<BONDS>                                         11,611
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           185
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,305
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    57,611
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,007
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,214
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,010
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,970)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (13,970)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (13,970)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.77)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.77)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM PACIFIC
SUNWEAR OF CALIFORNIA, INC.'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED AUGUST 3,
1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-05-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-03-1997
<CASH>                                      12,923,832
<SECURITIES>                                19,718,780
<RECEIVABLES>                                  901,750
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 31,554,197
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            69,771,494
<PP&E>                                      53,639,938
<DEPRECIATION>                            (18,167,724)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             106,833,714
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       18,372,225
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        90,997
<OTHER-SE>                                  82,738,341
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               106,833,714
<SALES>                                     48,326,141
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            48,326,141
<CGS>                                       32,477,214
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,379,171
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (293,888)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,763,644
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,884,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,879,644
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,879,644
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.32
        

</TABLE>
From: jamrpoi@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:30:55 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,

JAMES POINTER

Kokomo, IN 46902
From: bwinstead@tds.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:22:07 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,

Bethany Winstead

Woodbine, GA 31569