alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. Res. 502 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

June 22, 2007. 

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 

the bill (H.R. 2771) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, 

and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 

dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 

the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 

of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 

shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 

the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 

on Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill 

shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule 

XXI are waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no 

amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed 
2 

•HRES 502 EH 

in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 

resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 

order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 

designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be 

debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided 

and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not 

be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the 

Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 

amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 

or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of the 

bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 

bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 

adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 

on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 

intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 

without instructions. 

SEC. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 2771 

pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 

the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consid-
3 

•HRES 502 EH 

eration of the bill to such time as may be designated by the 

Speaker. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
From: lcdmom@bis.midco.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:30:30 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,

Linda Dvorak

Bismarck, ND 58503
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Robert B. Allen, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Brinks Home Security Holdings, Inc.; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 6, 2010



/s/ Robert B. AllenRobert B. AllenPresident, Chief Executive Officer and Director




38
#### In the Matter of Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Appellant, v Lawrence Perry, Respondent.

[632 NYS2d 31]

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the petitioner appeals from so *498much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), entered March 16, 1994, as denied its application for a permanent stay of arbitration.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the petitioner’s application for a permanent stay of arbitration is granted.

While stopped at a red light, Lawrence Perry’s vehicle was suddenly hit in the rear by another vehicle. While Perry was still shaken, an unidentified individual pointed a gun at him and told him to get out of the car. This individual then drove away in Perry’s vehicle. For his physical injuries allegedly sustained in the accident, Perry sought to recover uninsured motorist benefits pursuant to his automobile liability policy issued by the petitioner Aetna Casualty & Surety Company (hereinafter Aetna). Aetna sought to stay arbitration claiming that there was no coverage under its policy because Perry’s injuries were the result of intentional conduct, not the result of an accident, as required by the policy. The court disagreed with Aetna and denied Aetna’s application to stay arbitration. We now reverse.

Perry’s injuries were the result of an intentional assault, not the result of an accident (see, *Matter of Travelers Indem. Co. v Morales,*188 AD2d 350; *Matter of Kilbride [MVAIC],*62 Misc 2d 641; *McCarthy v MVAIC,*16 AD2d 35, *affd*12 NY2d 922). Accordingly, the incident was not covered under the applicable policy. Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.1

 

Section 302 Certification of Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer

 

I, Mark A. Scharmann, certify that:

 

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Spirits Time International, Inc.

 

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations  and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I; are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

 

    a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

    b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this report (the  "Evaluation Date"); and

 

    c)   presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

 

5.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

    a)   all significant  deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

 

    b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls.

 

6.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this report whether or not there were significant changes in  internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant efficiencies and material weaknesses.

 

 

Date: April 14, 2020

 

/s/ Mark A. Scharmann

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

Mark A. Scharmann

President, Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer, Principal Financial Accounting Officer
From: painterjohn99@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:01:37 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,

John Steele

Nashville, TN 37214
EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United
States Code), the undersigned officer of Pure Earth, Inc. (the Company) does hereby certify with respect to the
Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the Report) that:  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: March 30, 2009 By:
/s/ Brent Kopenhaver

Brent Kopenhaver

Chairman, Executive Vice President,

Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.
From: jdmcq@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:48:37 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,

James Mc Quillan

Hampstead, NC 28443
To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:50:29 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,

Paul Temple

Warren, NJ 07059
From: aabadie1165@charter.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:04:34 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,

Andre J. Abadie, Jr.

Vacherie, LA 70090
From: larry.sreyem@Yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:01:38 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,

Larry & Eva Lou Meyers

Burlington, IA 52601
From: davidr_george@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:56:41 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,

David George

Draper, UT 84020