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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 391 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          June 6, 2007.
Whereas the residents of North Texas have greeted thousands of troops returning 
        to the United States from Iraq and Afghanistan for Rest and Recuperation 
        since the program's inception in June of 2004;
Whereas volunteers from North Texas welcome over 200 troops each day who travel 
        through Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport on their way home;
Whereas these are the first people the troops see upon their return to the 
        United States, and the support they give the troops on behalf of all 
        Americans is invaluable and inspirational;
Whereas citizens like Bert Brady, a veteran, spend 300 days a year at the 
        airport thanking troops for their service and giving them a well 
        deserved homecoming;
Whereas thousands of young men from the Boy Scouts of America's Circle Ten 
        Council have also selflessly contributed to one of the largest and most 
        respected community initiatives in North Texas; and
Whereas these dedicated and selfless volunteers positively impact the morale and 
        spirit of the men and women serving our country in Iraq and Afghanistan 
        and demonstrate our appreciation for their sacrifice to the Country: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives honors the valuable work of the 
``Welcome Home a Hero'' program and its volunteers and expresses gratitude for 
their efforts to support our troops proudly serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
From: Ddcbcoo@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:58:05 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,

Debbie Coombe

Fort Walton Beach, FL 32548
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.2


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 Quarterly Report of
Remington Oil and Gas Corporation (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, J. Burke Asher,
Vice President/ Finance (Principal Financial Officer) of the
Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to §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/ J. BURKE ASHER           
| |                              
| | J. Burke Asher               
| | Vice President/ Finance      
| | (Principal Financial Officer)

November 12, 2002
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 12733]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5361]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Notice

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:  Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, March 15, 2011, 1 p.m. Eastern Time.

PLACE: Commission Meeting Room on the First Floor of the EEOC Office 
Building, 131 ``M'' Street, NE., Washington, DC 20507.

STATUS: The meeting will be open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Open Session

    1. Announcement of Notation Votes, and
    2. Employment of People with Mental Disabilities.

    Note:  In accordance with the Sunshine Act, the meeting will be 
open to public observation of the Commission's deliberations and 
voting. Seating is limited and it is suggested that visitors arrive 
30 minutes before the meeting in order to be processed through 
security and escorted to the meeting room. (In addition to 
publishing notices on EEOC Commission meetings in the Federal 
Register, the Commission also provides information about Commission 
meetings on its Web site, http://www.eeoc.gov., and provides a 
recorded announcement a week in advance on future Commission 
sessions.)

    Please telephone (202) 663-7100 (voice) and (202) 663-4074 (TTY) at 
any time for information on these meetings. The EEOC provides sign 
language interpretation and Communication Access Realtime Translation 
(CART) services at Commission meetings for individuals who are deaf or 
hard of hearing. Requests for other reasonable accommodations may be 
made by using the voice and TTY numbers listed above.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Stephen Llewellyn, Executive 
Officer on (202) 663-4070.

    Dated: March 4, 2011.
Stephen Llewellyn,
Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 2011-5361 Filed 3-4-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6570-01-P
```
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 17, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50690

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MERCED MADRID-RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. P-03-CR-11-3

 

Before GARWOOD, EMILIO M. GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Merced Madrid-Rodriguez was convicted on his conditional

guilty plea of possession with intent to distribute marihuana. He

appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress and

argues that the stop of the truck in which he was a passenger was

not supported by reasonable suspicion and, as a result, the
2

marihuana seized and the post-arrest statements he made should be

suppressed.

The following facts, among others, were considered in

determining that there was reasonable suspicion to support the stop

of the truck in which Madrid was a passenger: (1) at the time the

truck was initially spotted, it was very close to an illegal border

crossing and was traveling directly behind a white Oldsmobile,

which was the subject of a BOLO report and owned by a known drug

trafficker; (2) the truck matched the description of a truck owned

by a known drug trafficker; (3) both the Oldsmobile and the truck

had two-way radio antennas attached to the roofs; (4) the truck was

stopped in an area known for illegal trafficking; (5) the area in

which the truck was traveling is an area known to be used for

circumventing a checkpoint; (6) the agents were experienced in

cases involving illegal aliens and controlled substances; (7) the

driver of the truck decelerated and accelerated for no apparent

reason and immediately braked and veered onto the shoulder of the

road when he saw a marked patrol car; (8) when a helicopter was

approximately 50 feet away from the truck, the driver of the truck

did not acknowledge the helicopter but merely maintained his speed;

and (9) when the truck hit bumps and turned a corner sharply,

diesel fuel was emitted from the fuel tank.

Border Patrol Agents on roving patrols may make a temporary

investigative stop of a car if they are aware of specific,
3

articulable facts that reasonably warrant suspicion to believe that

criminal activity may be afoot. United States v. Arvizo, 534 U.S.

266, 273, 122 S.Ct. 744, 750 (2002). As a result of the foregoing

facts, we conclude that there was reasonable suspicion to support

the stop of the truck. Accordingly, the district court did not err

in denying the motion to suppress the seizure of the marihuana and

the post-arrest statements made by Madrid. See United States v.

Inocencio, 40 F.3d 716, 722-24 (5th Cir. 1994).

Thus, the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.
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 2008-041 (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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

IN THE INTEREST OF: D.Y.S. & E.M.S. 

PETITION OF: T.J.H., NATURAL 

MOTHER 

:

:

:

:

:

No. 924 MAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 19th day of January, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is DENIED. 

Mr. Justice Eakin did not participate in the consideration or decision of this 

matter. 

Mr. Justice Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision of this 

matter.
From: dwalthall@wildblue.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:28:47 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,

Deborah Walthall

South Boston, VA 24592
Exhibit 23.1











CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We have issued our reports dated March 14, 2011 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of Invesco Mortgage Capital Inc. and subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010.  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of Invesco Mortgage Capital Inc. on Forms S-3 (File No. 333-169105, effective September 10, 2010 and File No. 333-169104, effective September 10, 2010) and Form S-8 (File No. 333-163249, effective November 20, 2009).





/s/ Grant Thornton LLP





Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


March 14, 2011
ANNUAL
STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE
 
 OFFICER'S
CERTIFICATION
 
 
 Re:     Banc
of America Commercial Mortgage Inc.
 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
 Series 2008-1
 
 
 In
connection with the above-referenced transaction the undersigned officer, on
behalf of Bank of America, National Association, hereby certifies that (i) a
review of the Servicing activities, for the period ending December 31, 2008 and
of its performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of June 1,
2008 has been made under my supervision, and (ii) to the best of my knowledge,
based on such review, Bank of America, National Association has fulfilled all of
its obligations under this agreement in all material respects throughout the
aforementioned period.
 
 
 Bank of
America, National Association
 
 
 /s/
Janice M. Smith
 Janice M.
Smith
 Managing
Director
 
 
 /s/
H. Michael Lumadue
 H.
Michael Lumadue
 Vice
President
From: moejo@knology.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:55:37 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,

Marlin Chaussee

Canton, SD 57013
#### Peter Kase, Appellant, v Barbara Kase, Respondent.

[632 NYS2d 469]

—Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), dated February 24, 1994.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated by Justice Meehan at the Supreme Court. Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.
From: simplysusaniam@knology.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:35:18 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,

Susan Blakeslee

Madison, AL 35758
No. 67090.

protests 59/23284, etc. (San Francisco).

#### Glencourt Importing Co. and W. C. Auger et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, O. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Falcon Sales Company*and *J. J. Murphy & Co.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 129, C.D. 2292), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Mark Kaufmann, certify
that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of Ardelyx, 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: March 11, 2015 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Mark Kaufmann                                    
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Mark Kaufmann                                        
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
Before the Second Division,

September 20, 1966

No. P66/218. —

#### Sims-Worms, Inc. *v.*United States, protests 63/8556, 63/8557, and 63/9711 (Los Angeles).

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of waterproof twill back cotton velveteen cloth, which is similar' in all material respects, including waterproofing, to the velveteen cloth the subject of *Amity*Fabrics, *Inc.*v. *United States*(51 Cust. Ct. 97, C.D. 2416), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.