alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: ron_durr@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:04:17 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,

Ron Durr

Springfield, MO 65810
**EXHIBIT31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, James M. Frates, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Alkermes, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal controlover financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assuranceregarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements forexternal purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;     c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.       /s/James M. Frates    James M. Frates
Annual
Statement of Compliance
 Banc
of America Funding 2008-1 Trust
 
  Banc of
America Funding Corporation
 214 North
Tryon Street
 Charlotte,
North Carolina 28255
 Attention:
Scott Evans
 
 Re:           Banc
of America Funding 2008-1Trust
 
 
 Reference
is made to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the "Agreement") dated May 30,
2008 by and among Banc of America Funding Corporation, as Depositor, LaSalle
Bank National Association, as Master Servicer and as Securities Administrator,
and U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee.
 
 I, Sandra
Belmonit, a Vice President of Bank of America, National Association as successor
by merger to LaSalle Bank National Association, as Master Servicer hereby
certify that:
 
 1.
                    A
      review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
      calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the
      Agreement has been made under my supervision;
  and
 
 2.
                    To
      the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has
      fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
      throughout such year or a portion
thereof.
 
 Date: 3/25/09
 Bank of
America, National Association as successor by merger to LaSalle Bank National
Association, as Master Servicer
 
 
 /s/ Sandra
Belmonti
 Name: Sandra
Belmonti
 Title:   Vice
President


Tel:
312.904.1671


IL4 -
135-17-16


135 S. LaSalle St.,
Chicago, IL 60603




Recycled Paper
From: brockiemtnhi@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:39:08 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

Please remove the mandate that all sterilization procedures and contraceptives be covered by private

health insurance with no co-pay to patients. If not, please instead broaden "conscience protections" for

any groups that offer group and individual insurance who also have moral or religious objections. I

adamantly object to the government forcing "free" benefits such as drugs and devices when indeed the

cost to such objectionable items are bore by all, especially those that can cause an abortion (such as

ella and Plan B).

Please alter the definition of religious employer to offer an authentic conscience protection for any group

that has moral or religious objection to providing such mandated insurance to their participants. 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.

I ask you again to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of

mandatory preventive services.

Sincerely,

Darren Brockie

Ontario, CA 91761
EXHIBIT 32.1








CERTIFICATIONS OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Décor Products International, Inc., that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report of Décor Products International, Inc. on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the company.








April 15, 2011


By /s/ Rui Sheng Liu


Rui Sheng Liu


President and Chief Executive Officer


(Principal Executive Officer)




April 15, 2011


By /s/ Wai Fai Law


Wai Fai Law


Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Financial Officer)





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Décor Products International, Inc. and will be retained by Décor Products International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-5147

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. ALEJANDRO DIAZ-GUTIERREZ, Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:07-cr-00114-FDW-CH-1)

Submitted: September 21, 2009 Decided: December 7, 2009

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

D. Baker McIntyre, III, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Alejandro Diaz-Gutierrez was convicted of illegal reentry following removal from the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2006). The district court sentenced him to seventy-two months in prison. Diaz-Gutierrez appeals, contending that the admission of a warrant of deportation into evidence violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. We affirm. We review evidentiary rulings implicating the Confrontation Clause de novo. United States v. Abu Ali , 528 F.3d 210, 253 (4th Cir. 2008), cert. denied , 129 S. Ct. 1312 (2009). The Confrontation Clause bars “admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.” Crawford v. Washington , 541 U.S. 36, 53-54 (2004). “As Crawford and later Supreme Court cases make clear, a statement must be ‘testimonial’ to be excludable under the Confrontation Clause.” United States v.
Udeozor , 515 F.3d 260, 268 (4th Cir. 2008) (citing Davis v. Washington , 547 U.S. 813 (2006)). Documents “created for the administration of an entity’s affairs and not for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact at trial . . . are not testimonial.” Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts , 129 S. Ct. 2527, 2539-40 (2009).

23 A warrant of deportation is “not made in anticipation of litigation[.] . . . [I]t is simply a routine, objective cataloging of an unambiguous factual matter.” United States v.
Bahena-Cardenas , 411 F.3d 1067, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005). We conclude, as have all Circuits to have considered the question, that a warrant of deportation is nontestimonial and therefore “not subject to the requirements of the Confrontation Clause.”
See United States v. Burgos , 539 F.3d 641, 645 (7th Cir. 2008) (collecting cases). Therefore, the district court did not err in admitting the warrant of deportation into evidence. We accordingly affirm. 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.

AFFIRMED
Case No. 10,224.

#### NICHOLAS v. The PENANG.

[See Case No. 10,915.]
#### Fikre GETACHEW, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-1164.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 27, 2005.

Decided Aug. 12, 2005.

Thomas Hailu, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Kenneth L. Wainstein, United States Attorney, Madelyn E. Johnson, Heather R. Phillips, Assistant United States Attorneys, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

Fikre Getachew, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Because the Board affirmed under its streamlined process, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) (2005), the immigration *154judge’s decision is the final agency determination. *Camara v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 361, 366 (4th Cir.2004).

Getachew challenges the immigration judge’s finding that she failed to meet her burden of proof to qualify for asylum. We will reverse this decision only if the evidence “was so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” *Rusu v. U.S. INS,*296 F.3d 316, 325 n. 14 (4th Cir.2002) (quotation marks and citations omitted). We have reviewed the administrative record and the immigration judge’s decision and find that substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Getachew failed to establish past persecution or the well-founded fear of future persecution necessary to establish eligibility for asylum. *See 8*C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2005) (stating that the burden of proof is on the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 483, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (same).

We decline to address Getachew’s challenge to the immigration judge’s credibility determination, as she failed to raise the claim before the Board to satisfy the exhaustion requirement of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2000). *See Asika v. Ashcroft,*362 F.3d 264, 267 n. 3 (4th Cir.2004), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 861, 160 L.Ed.2d 769 (2005). Getachew does not challenge the ruling of the immigration judge, as affirmed by the Board, on her applications for withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture. Therefore, these claims are abandoned. *See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro,*178 F.3d 231, 241 n. 6 (4th Cir.1999).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
From: jremwehr@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:12:52 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 Wehr

Lees Summit, MO 64081
To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:44:59 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,

DAVEnMICHELLE LATONDRESS

Freeland, MI 48623
From: Cdd2345@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:22:50 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,

Christen Davis

Jacksonville, FL 32258
From: dimseyjr@iwon.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:30:26 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,

Roy Dimsey Jr

Chino Hills, CA 91709