alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 523 

Encouraging recognition, and supporting the goals and ideals, of National 

Aphasia Awareness Month. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 27, 2007 

Mr. MARKEY submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

RESOLUTION 

Encouraging recognition, and supporting the goals and 

ideals, of National Aphasia Awareness Month. 

Whereas aphasia is a communication impairment caused by 

brain damage, typically resulting from a stroke; 

Whereas while aphasia is most often the result of stroke or 

brain injury, it can also occur in other neurological disorders, such as in the case of a brain tumor; 

Whereas many people with aphasia also have weakness or paralysis in their right leg and right arm, usually due to 

damage to the left hemisphere of the brain, which controls language and movement on the right side of the 

body; 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 523 IH 

Whereas the effects of aphasia may include a loss or reduction in ability to speak, comprehend, read, and write, 

while intelligence remains intact; 

Whereas stroke is the third largest cause of death, ranking 

behind heart disease and cancer; 

Whereas stroke is a leading cause of serious, long-term disability in the United States; 

Whereas there are about 5 million stroke survivors alive in 

the United States; 

Whereas it is estimated that there are about 750,000 strokes 

per year in the United States, with approximately one 

third of these resulting in aphasia; 

Whereas aphasia affects at least 1,000,000 people in the 

United States; 

Whereas more than 200,000 Americans acquire the disorder 

each year; 

Whereas the National Aphasia Association is unique and provides communication strategies, support, and education 

for people with aphasia and their caregivers throughout 

the United States; 

Whereas as an advocacy organization for people with aphasia 

and their caregivers, the National Aphasia Association 

envisions a world that recognizes this ‘‘silent’’ disability 

and provides opportunity and fulfillment for those affected by aphasia; and 

Whereas National Aphasia Awareness Month is being commemorated in June 2007: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 523 IH 

1 (1) supports the goals and ideals of, and en2 courages all Americans to observe, National Aphasia 

3 Awareness Month; 

4 (2) recognizes that strokes, a primary cause of 

5 aphasia, are the third largest cause of death and dis6 ability in the United States; 

7 (3) acknowledges that aphasia deserves more 

8 attention and study in order to find new solutions 

9 for individuals experiencing aphasia and their care10 givers; and 

11 (4) must make the voices of those with aphasia 

12 heard because they are often unable to communicate 

13 their condition to others. 

Æ 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with BILLS
From: SPIERCE@DCPS.ORG

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:50:37 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,

SHIRLEY PIERCE

Owensboro, KY 42303
Before the Third Division,

August 9, 1967

No. P67/266.

#### Western Pacific Import Co. *v.*United States, protests 62/10668 and 63/3324 (San Diego).

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of cups and saucers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *W. Kay Company, Inc.*v. *United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 130, C.D. 2484), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 60542.

#### Samuel Shapiro & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 274805-K (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

The protest was dismissed.
From: jc4a4him@telebeep.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:34:48 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,

Carolyn Warren

Norfolk, NE 68701
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

WILLIAM MOORE

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 744

[ April 26, 2018 ]

Appeal of order denying 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the

Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Paul L. Backman , Judge;

L.T. Case No. 03

- 0 19068CF10A

.

William Moore, Indiantown, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

T

AYLOR

, L EVINE and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Integrated Circuit Systems,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending June 29, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Hock E. Tan, 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; and

         (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



/s/ Hock E. Tan
---------------
Hock E. Tan
Chief Executive Officer
November 12, 2002
No. 61540.

#### Burroughs Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 261928-K, etc. (Detroit).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise marked *“A”*consist of key-driven calculating machines and parts thereof the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Plus Computing Machines, Inc.*v. *United States*(44 C. C. P. A. 160, C. A. D. 655), the claim at 12% percent under the provision in paragraph 372, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52739), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52763), for calculating machines specially constructed for multiplying and dividing and parts thereof was sustained as to said items. The items marked “B,” stipulated to be the same in all material respects as the merchandise the subject of O. A. D. 655, *supra,*except for having, in addition, an electric motor as an essential feature, were held dutiable at 12% percent under the provision in paragraph 353, as modified by T. D. 52739, supplemented by T. D. 52763, *supra,*for calculating machines specially constructed for multiplying and dividing, having an electric motor as an essential feature and parts thereof, or at 11% percent under said paragraph, as modified by the Sixth *443Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 54108), if entered for consumption after June 30, 1956.
From: cdteeter@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:21:36 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,

Donald L. Teeter

Karthaus, PA 16845
From: bonner3649@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:34:10 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,

Bonner Orr

Taylorsville, NC 28681
No. P69/97.

protests 63/16554 and 64/14490 (New York).

#### Supreme Woodworking Machinery Corp. *v.*United States,

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of woodworking machines similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Supreme Woodworking Machine et al.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 368, Abstract 69204) wherein the court held that the woodworking-machine and accompanying electric motor were separate entities rather than an entirety, the protest was dismissed and the matter remanded for further proceedings to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the separate value of the machines and motors in the manner provided by law (28 U.S.C., section 2636(d)).
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Daniel Profit DAVIS, a/k/a Daniel Prophet Davis, a/k/a Proffit Davis, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-6644.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 3, 2005.

Decided Aug. 25, 2005.

Daniel Profit Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Albert Jamison Lang, Office of the United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

Daniel Profit Davis appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a *224constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537*U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Davis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Davis’ motions to proceed in forma pauper-is and for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
No. 68121.

#### Abercrombie & Pitch Company *v.*United States,

protests 62/13692, etc. (NewYork).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of original miniatures the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Abercrombie & Fitch Company*v. *United, States*(49 CCPA 129, C.A.D. 808), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 58677.

protests 221539-K, 225966-K, and 226318-K (New York).

#### Astoria Pan Americana, Inc., and J. J. Boll v. United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of ficin powder or *leche de oje en polvo*the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Astoria Pan-Americana, Inc.*v. *United States*(32 Oust. Ct. 243, C. D. 1608), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: capt_lou2003@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

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

To Whom It May Concern:

ObamaCare Condoning Promiscuity instead of Responsible Behavior for our youth and young adults - no

wonder this country is going to the dogs.

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,

Louis Rosa

Saint Petersburg, FL 33705
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 584 

Supporting the goals and ideals of ‘‘National Life Insurance Awareness 

Month’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 30, 2007 

Mrs. BIGGERT (for herself, Mr. KANJORSKI, Mr. BACHUS, and Mr. HINOJOSA) 

submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 

on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the goals and ideals of ‘‘National Life Insurance 

Awareness Month’’. 

Whereas life insurance is an essential part of a sound financial plan; 

Whereas life insurance provides financial security for families 

by helping surviving members meet immediate and longterm financial obligations and objectives in the event of 

a premature death in their family; 

Whereas approximately 68,000,000 United States citizens 

lack the adequate level of life insurance coverage needed 

to ensure a secure financial future for their loved ones; 

Whereas life insurance products protect against the uncertainties of life by enabling individuals and families to 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•HRES 584 IH 

manage the financial risks of premature death, disability, 

and long-term care; 

Whereas individuals, families, and businesses can benefit 

from professional insurance and financial planning advice, including an assessment of their life insurance 

needs; and 

Whereas numerous groups supporting life insurance have designated September 2007 as ‘‘National Life Insurance 

Awareness Month’’ as a means to encourage consumers 

to— 

(1) become more aware of their life insurance needs; 

(2) seek professional advice regarding life insurance; 

and 

(3) take the actions necessary to achieve financial 

security for their loved ones: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the goals and ideals of ‘‘National 

3 Life Insurance Awareness Month’’; and 

4 (2) calls on the Federal Government, States, lo5 calities, schools, nonprofit organizations, businesses, 

6 and the citizens of the United States to observe the 

7 month with appropriate programs and activities. 

Æ 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS