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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:20:38 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,

Debbie Patterson

Littleton, CO 80127
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 Principal
Life Income Fundings Trust 2008-049 (the Exchange Act periodic reports);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, do
not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary 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(s) 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(s) in all material respects; and5.
    
    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 Rules
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/ Dwight N. Soethout

Dwight N. SoethoutVice President  Principal Life Insurance Company
From: rcroy222@fuse.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:12:05 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,

Ann Croy

Hamilton, OH 45011
From: Nizich, Sharon [mailto:Nizich.Sharon@epa.gov]

Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 12:56 PM

To: Susan Miller <SMiller@bia.org>; Raymond, Gabrie lle <graymond@rti.org>

Cc: Sroka, Kristin <ksroka@rti.org>; Holloway, Thomas C. (Tom) <tcholloway@rti.org>

Subject: RE: Questions about PM data

Yes that is correct.

Sharon Nizich

US EPA

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Sector Policies and Pro grams Division/SPPD

RTP NC 27711

(919) 541 2825

From: Susan Miller [ mailto:SMiller@bia.org ]

Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 9:17 AM

To: Raymond, Gabrielle

Cc: Nizich, Sharon; Sroka, Kristin; Holloway, Thomas C. (Tom)

Subject: RE: Questions about PM data

And that is compliance as well, yes?

Susan Miller

919 380

- 2191

smiller@bia.org

When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know; but when you listen, you may learn

something new.

- Dalai Lama

From: Raymond, Gabrielle [ mailto:graymond@rti.org ]

Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2015 9:16 AM

To: Susan Miller

Cc: Nizich, Sharon ( Niz ich.Sharon@epa.gov ); Sroka, Kristin; Holloway, Thomas C. (Tom)

Subject: RE: Questions about PM data

The data used to calculate the PM MACT floor was based on the filterable front

- half only.

Gabrielle RaymondRTI International

3040 Cornwallis Road

P.O. Bo x 12194

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

Phone: (919) 541

- 7015

From: Susan Miller [ mailto:SMiller@bia.org ]

Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 11:57 AM

To: Raymond, Gabrielle

Cc: Nizich, Sharon ( Nizich.Sharon@epa.gov )

Subject: Questions about PM data

As I recall, the compliance for PM for the 2003 rule was front

- half only, and the words in this rule

appear to be the same. But

- I cannot see that it says filterable anywhere except where it mentions

measuring the one filter. Is that sufficient wording to make it front half only? Is that still what is

intended? This is proving to be a VERY difficult number for most of our small bus inesses, so I

want to be sure I am advising them correctly. Thanks in advance for your help understanding this.

susan

Susan Miller

919 380

- 2191

smiller@bia.org

When you talk, you are only repeating what you alrea dy know; but when you listen, you may learn

something new.

- Dalai Lama
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 11363

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appell ee

v.
CRYSTAL COMPTON , Defendant

- Appell ant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:16

- CV

- 1855

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Crystal Compton, federal prisoner # 28755

- 177, moves for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s order transferring her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to this court as an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion. The district court’s tra nsfer order is an appealable collateral order over which this court has jurisdiction. In re Bradford , 660 F.3d 226, 228

- 29 (5th Cir. 2011). However, because such a transfer order is completely separate from the merits of the action, it is not a final ord er within the meaning of 28

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 2, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-11363 Document: 00514099694 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/02/2017No. 16

- 11363

2 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B ), and a COA is not required. See United States v. Fulton , 780 F.3d 683, 688 (5th Cir. 2015). Therefore, Compton’s request for a COA is denied as unnecessary. See id. On appeal, Compton reasserts the cla ims raised in her § 2255 motion and raises numerous issues for the first time on appeal. She does not identify any error in the district court ’ s order transferring her motion to this court as an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion

. When an appellant fails to make any argument challenging the district court ’s ruling, it “ is the same as if he had not appealed that judgment. ” Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987)

. By not identifying any e rror in the district court ’ s order , Compton has abandoned the only issue before this court. See Brinkmann , 813 F.2d at 748

. Because Compton’s § 2255 motion was indeed successive and filed without our authorization, the district court did not err in trans ferring it for lack of jurisdiction. 1 See Fulton , 780 F.3d at 686, 689. MOTION FOR COA DENIED AS UNNECESSARY ; AFFIRMED

.

1 In a previous case, we denied her request for permission to file a successive habeas petition. In re Compton , No. 16

- 10968 (5th Cir. Sept. 29, 2016). Case: 16-11363 Document: 00514099694 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/02/2017
EX-4.3



 Exhibit 4.3 
  





 
 SEE REVERSE FOR IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING OWNERSHIP AND TRANSFER RESTRICTIONS AND CERTAIN OTHER INFORMATION ZQ INCORPORATED UNDER THE
LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE CUSIP 212481 1 05 COMMON STOCK SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK, PAR VALUE OF $0.0001 PER SHARE, OF CONVERGEONE HOLDINGS, INC. transferable on the books of the
Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate and the shares represented hereby are issued and shall be held subject to all of the provisions of the
Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation and its Bylaws, and the holder of this Certificate, by acceptance hereof, assents to all such provisions. This Certificate is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer Agent
and registered by the Registrar. WITNESS the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers. PRESIDENT, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD 







 



 
 The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were
written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations; TEN COM -as tenants in common UNIF GIFT MIN ACT- Custodian—— (CUlt) (Minor) TENENT - as tenants by the entireties IT TEN -as joint
tenants with right of under Uniform Gifts to Minors ~vorshipand not as tenants Act-——-,———,——-mcommon (S1a~o) TIEE -trustee under Agreement dated——- Additional
abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. For value received, hereby sell, assign and transfer unto PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE PLEASE PAINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDING POSTAL
ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE. ______________________________ Shares of the common stock represented by this certificate and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint ______________________ attorney, to transfer the said stock on the books of the
within-named corporation with full power of substitution in the premises. DATED _________________ NOTICE:Tlle signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as written upon the face of the certificate in every particular wHhout
alteration or enlargement or any change whaiiMir. SIGNATURE GUARANTEED; THE SIClNAl\JRE(Sl SHOULD BE ClUARArflEED BY AN ELICliBL.E ClUARAIIITOR INSTIT\JTION. IBANKS STOCKBROKERS ~ SAVINGS AND LOANASSOCIATlONSAND CREDrTUNIONSWITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN
APPROVED SIGNA 1URE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM), PURSUANT10 S.E.C. RULE 17M-15.
UNITE D STATE S O FAMERIC A DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C 

### DEPARTMEN TO F RAMSPOBTATIO N r^XKE TOPERATION S m NO V 

### 2 U 

### A 0 l b

TRAVE L GROUP , INC. , D/B/A REPUBLI C AI RTRAVE L AN D SCO T SPENCE R AIRLIF T GROUP , INC
. AN D RICHAR D BERNAR D Unauthorize dAi r

Transportation , Unfai r an dDeceptiv e Practice s an dUnfai r

Method s o f

Competition , an d Violation s o f

Publi c Charte r

Rule s EXPRES S ON E INTERNATIONAL , INC
. Unfai r an dDeceptiv e Practice s an dUnfai r Method s o f Competition , an dViolation s o f Publi c Charte r

Rule s Enforcemen t

Proceedin g DOT-OST-1995-27 2
formerl y Docke t 4923 3

STATU S REPOR T
Th e Offic e o f

th e Assistan t

Genera l Counse l for

Aviatio n Enforcemen t

an d Proceeding s ("Enforcemen t Office") , pursuan t

t o You r Honor' s Marc h 22 , 2006 , Orde r stayin g thi s proceeding , file s thi s report detailin g th e curren t

statu s of thi s proceedin g an d settlemen t

negotiations
. Th e Departmen t

ha s no t rule do n th e outstandin g motion s file db y Respondent s
an doppose db y th e Enforcemen t Offic e i n Ascen dAviatio n Group , Docke t OST-2004

- 17486
.Ther e hav e bee n n o further settlemen t

discussions
. Date : Novembe r

24 , 2010
. Respectfull y submitted
.

Samue l Podberesky Assistan t Genera l Counse l for Aviatio n Enforcemen t

an dProceeding s Dayto n Lehman , Jr
. Deput y Assistan t

Genera l Counse l for Aviatio n Enforcemen t

an dProceeding s 

# L l&^£>^^.\UJf

i I Willia mJ
. Wagflei: ' / I
•j Senio r Tria l Attorne y % Unite dState s Departmen t o f Transportatio n I Offic e o f Aviatio n Enforcemen t

an dProceeding s I 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E
. ! Roo m96-42 9 1 Washington , D.C
. 2059 0 I TEL : 202-366-934 2 I FAX : 202-366-715 2Docke t No
. DOT-OST-1995-27 2 I hereb y certif

y that o n thi s 24th day of

November , 2010 , atru e an dcorrec t cop y o f th e foregoin g Statu s Report

wa s serve di n th e followin g manne r t o th e following : Original U.S
. Departmen t

of Transportatio n Docke t Operations , M-3 0 Wes t Buildin g Groun dFloo r Roo mW12-14 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E
. Washington , D.C
. 2059 0 B y Persona l Servic e Th e Honorabl e Ronnie A Yode r Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e of Hearings , M-2 0 U.S
. Departmen t

of Transportatio n Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloo r Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D.C
. 2059 0 TEL : (202 ) 366-214 2 FAX : (202 ) 366-753 6 B y Firs t Clas s Mai l Scot Spence r SB D Aircraf

t Service s 25 5 S Lelan dNorto n Way SamBernardino , C A 9240 8 

## .-^P ^ 

# / ^ y iwyw\

A -f v /
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 66479]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21015]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

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


Vermont; Amendment No. 5 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 
areas 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.

    Addison and Orleans Counties for debris removal [Category A] and 
permanent work [Categories C-G] (already designated for emergency 
protective measures [Category B], including direct federal 
assistance, under the Public Assistance program). Caledonia, 
Chittenden, Lamoille, Rutland, Windham, and Windsor Counties for 
debris removal [Category A] and permanent work [Categories C-G] 
(already designated for Individual Assistance and emergency 
protective measures [Category B], including direct federal 
assistance, under the Public Assistance program).

    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. 2023-21015 Filed 9-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
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 VizStar, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended May 31 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gary Clyburn, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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.




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.




September 15, 2010By:
/s/ Gary Clyburn, Jr.Name: Gary Clyburn, Jr.Title: Chief Executive Officer
Nos. 439, Misc., 440, Misc., and 441, Misc.

#### Scott *v.*Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County.

Supreme Court of California. Certiorari denied.
```

[114th Congress Public Law 33]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 129 STAT. 432]]

Public Law 114-33
114th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 141 Paloma Drive in Floresville, Texas, as the ``Floresville Veterans 
     Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: July 20, 2015 -  [H.R. 891]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FLORESVILLE VETERANS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 141 Paloma Drive in Floresville, Texas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Floresville Veterans Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Floresville 
Veterans Post Office Building''.

    Approved July 20, 2015.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 891:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 161 (2015):
            June 15, considered and passed House.
            July 8, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
From: dayleta@windstream.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:44:42 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,

Dayle Fowler

Clarkesville, GA 30523