alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 99


                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 Calloway's Nursery, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby 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 consolidated financial condition
                  and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 14th day of August 2002.


                                        CALLOWAY'S NURSERY, INC.


                                        /s/ James C. Estill
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        James C. Estill
                                        Chief Executive Officer


                                        /s/ Daniel G. Reynolds
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        Daniel G. Reynolds
                                        Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Gurpartap Singh Basrai, President, Director,  President, Chief Executive and Operating Officer, Treasurer, and Secretary of Ranger Gold Corp. (the “Company”) certifies, under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended March 31, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange  Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and  results  of operations of the Company.








Dated: June 28, 2011





By: /s/ Gurpartap Singh Basrai


Name: Gurpartap Singh Basrai


Title: Director, President, Chief Executive Officer,


Chief Operating Officer, Treasurer, and Secretary


(Principal Executive, Financial & Accounting Officer)
From: stauffer.debbie@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:17:56 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 Stauffer

Slippery Rock, PA 16057
No. 63347.

protests 328635-K, etc. (New York).

#### Cresca Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

*339Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of soup mixes similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Cresca Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 211, C.D. 1864), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: Diane McNamara

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:17:28 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Diane McNamara
Hamburg, New York
From: Pennellgj@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:56:32 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,

Grady Pennell

Eagle River, AK 99577
From: Mary Ann Smyth

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:23:14 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Mary Ann Smyth
Centennial, Colorado
From: allofusall@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:44:26 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

The recent decision to force free birth control and "abortion in a pill" services is an appalling strike

against morality and decency.

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,

Loren Alldrin

Redding, CA 96001
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

LONNIE CARTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSEPH LEHMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5681RBL

ORDER GRANTING

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS AND

DIRECTING INSTITUTION TO

CALCULATE, COLLECT, AND

FORWARD PAYMENTS

The Court, having reviewed plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1), does

hereby find and ORDER. 

(1) Plaintiff’s declaration indicates he is unable to afford the court’s filing fee or give security

therefor. Accordingly, plaintiff’s application to proceed as a pauper is GRANTED. As set forth below,

an initial partial filing fee will be collected, and plaintiff is required to make monthly payments of

20 percent of the preceding months income credited to his/her account until the full amount of the

filing fee is satisfied.

(2) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and plaintiff’s approved application to proceed in forma

pauperis, the agency having custody of the above named plaintiff is directed to calculate an initial partial

filing fee equal to 20 percent of greater of -- the average monthly deposits to the prisoner’s account or the

average monthly balance in the prisoner’s account for the 6-month period immediately preceding the date

of this Order. The initial partial filing fee should be forwarded to the court clerk as soon as practicable.

Subsequently, if the prisoner’s account exceeds $10.00, each month the agency is directed to

Case 3:05-cv-05681-RBL Document 4 Filed 11/07/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 2

collect and forward payments equal to 20 percent of the prisoner’s preceding month’s income credited to

the prisoner’s account. In the event that the monthly payment would reduce the prisoner’s account below

$10.00, the agency should collect and forward only that amount which would reduce the prisoner’s

account to the $10.00 level. Please note that this $10.00 limit does not apply to the initial partial filing fee

described above. Finally, the monthly payments should be collected and forwarded to the court until the

entire filing fee ($250.00) for this matter has been paid.

(3) The Clerk is directed to send plaintiff a copy of this Order and the General Order, and a copy

of this Order along with a copy of plaintiff’s Acknowledgment and Authorization portion of the IFP

application to the attention of the inmate account manager (IFP account manager) at the Washington State

Department of Corrections.

DATED this 7thday of November, 2005.

 /s/ J. Kelley Arnold____________ J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05681-RBL Document 4 Filed 11/07/05 Page 2 of 2
Case 3:05-cr-05823-RBL Document 281 Filed 07/23/07 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:05-cr-05823-RBL Document 281 Filed 07/23/07 Page 2 of 2
From: franchiz01@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:31:44 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,

Frances Chisholm

Savoy, IL 61874
ORDER FOR EAJA FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES 

[C05-5771FDB] - 1 

Elie Halpern & Associates, P.S. 

1800 Cooper Pt. Road SW, Bldg. 19 

Olympia, WA 98502 

(360) 753-8055 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 United States District Judge FRANKLIN D. BURGESS 

 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

PAUL SORNBERGER, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CIVIL NO. C05-5771FDB 

ORDER FOR EAJA FEES, COSTS AND 

EXPENSES 

THIS MATTER having come on regularly before the undersigned upon by 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Award EAJA Fees, Costs, and Expenses, the Defendant not 

opposing said motion, and the Court agreeing that EAJA fees, costs, and expenses 

should be awarded, good cause having been shown, now, therefore, it is hereby 

 ORDERED that Plaintiff’s attorney Elie Halpern is hereby awarded EAJA fees of 

$3,410.93 and expenses of $71.17 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2412 and costs of $18.35 as 

set out at 28 U.S.C. §1920, payable from the Judgment Fund pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 

§1304. 

Case 3:05-cv-05771-FDB Document 19 Filed 04/24/06 Page 1 of 2
ORDER FOR EAJA FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES 

[C05-5771FDB] - 2 

Elie Halpern & Associates, P.S. 

1800 Cooper Pt. Road SW, Bldg. 19 

Olympia, WA 98502 

(360) 753-8055 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 DATED this 24th day of April 2006. 

A

FRANKLIN D. BURGESS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Presented by: 

S/ELIE HALPERN____________ 

ELIE HALPERN, WSBA #1519 

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 3:05-cv-05771-FDB Document 19 Filed 04/24/06 Page 2 of 2
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 360 

Recognizing the 70th anniversary of the Idaho Potato Commission and expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that an Idaho Potato 

Month should be established. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 1, 2007 

Mr. SIMPSON (for himself and Mr. SALI) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the 70th anniversary of the Idaho Potato Commission and expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that an Idaho Potato Month should be established. 

Whereas the State of Idaho produces approximately one-third 

of all of the potatoes grown in the United States, harvesting an average of 12,000,000,000 to 14,000,000,000 

pounds annually; 

Whereas the State of Idaho’s unique climate of warm days, 

cool nights, mountain-fed irrigation, and rich volcanic soil 

is conducive to growing world-renowned potatoes; 

Whereas Idaho potatoes are top-selling and highly recognized 

potatoes in the United States due to their consistently 

great taste, versatility, and nutritional content; 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 360 IH 

Whereas the Idaho potato ‘‘brand’’ is recognized throughout 

the world for its high quality, and is an identifying characteristic of the great State of Idaho; 

Whereas May of 2007 marks the 70th consecutive year that 

Idaho potatoes have been promoted by the Idaho Potato 

Commission, an Idaho potato industry group responsible 

for generating attention for the numerous attributes of 

Idaho potatoes; 

Whereas the Idaho Potato Commission is recognized nationally and internationally as a top promotional authority 

for Idaho’s potatoes and potato products; 

Whereas the Idaho Potato Commission’s requirement, since 

1959, that only potatoes grown in the State of Idaho are 

allowed to wear the ‘‘Grown in Idaho’’ Federal certification mark contributed toward the creation of a distinctive, enduringly successful, and popular brand for the 

Russet Burbank potato variety; and 

Whereas Idaho’s potato industry contributes approximately 

$2,700,000,000 to the economy of Idaho and employs 

39,000 residents of that State: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes the 70th anniversary of the 

3 Idaho Potato Commission; and 

4 (2) expresses its sense that an Idaho Potato 

5 Month should be established. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS