alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: krene61@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:18:48 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,

Kelly Sullivan

Encinitas, CA 92023
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 483 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         July 10, 2007.
Whereas Big Bend National Park is a scenic treasure of southwest Texas 
        encompassing more than 800,000 acres;
Whereas Big Bend National Park manages nearly one quarter of the approximately 
        1000 mile stretch of the Rio Grande River that also serves as the 
        boundary between the United States and Mexico;
Whereas along the boundary of the park, the flow of the Rio Grand River shifts 
        from a southeasterly direction to the northeast, forming the bend after 
        which the park is named;
Whereas Big Bend National Park is unique because it covers a variety of 
        different ecosystems ranging from the Chihuahuan Desert to the Chisos 
        Mountains;
Whereas Native people inhabited the area for thousands of years;
Whereas many people have traversed the Big Bend region in the past 150 years, 
        including Spanish explorers, Comanche Indians, Mexican settlers, and 
        American ranchers;
Whereas in 1933 the Texas Legislature, led by Everett Ewing Townsend, 
        established the Texas Canyons State Park;
Whereas later that year the park was expanded and renamed Big Bend State Park;
Whereas Townsend later became known as the Father of Big Bend National Park;
Whereas between 1934 and 1942 the Civilian Conservation Corps worked diligently 
        to make the park suitable for visitors; and
Whereas 63 years ago Big Bend National Park, ``Texas' Gift to the Nation'', was 
        officially established on June 12, 1944: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes the 63rd anniversary of the founding of Big Bend 
        National Park; and
            (2) honors the National Park Service for their service to the Big 
        Bend region and Big Bend National Park.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 as of the dates and for the
periods presented in the financial statements included in the report.
  /s/ Robert C. Sepucha

Robert C. SepuchaChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2



                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

                             Chief Financial Officer

         The undersigned, as the chief financial officer of Allied Healthcare
         Products, Inc. (the "Company") does hereby certify for purposes of 18
         U.S.C. Section 1350 that (i) the Company's Quarterly Report on Form
         10-Q for the Company's fiscal quarter ending September 30, 2003 (the
         "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
         November 14, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of section
         13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii)
         information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report.

                                       /s/  Daniel C. Dunn
                                       ---------------------------------------
                                       Daniel C. Dunn, Chief Financial Officer

                                       November 12, 2003
From: tommy111@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:26:03 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,

Nancy Davis

Saint Charles, MO 63303
Exhibit
32




CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT
TO RULES 13a-14(b) AND 15d-14(b) OF
 THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND
 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 
  
 The
undersigned, Thomas L. Wegman, the President, Principal Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer of BioSpecifics Technologies Corp. (the “Company”),
DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:
  1.
              The
      Company’s report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008
      (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 operation of the
      Company.
  IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification this 11thday of August,
2008.
  
 /s/ Thomas L.
Wegman_______________________
 Thomas L.
Wegman
 President,
Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
  
 This
certification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange of 1934, or otherwise subject to liability pursuant to that
section.  Such certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that the Company specifically
incorporates it by reference.
  A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
From: donnahinva@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:40:01 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,

Donna D. Hores

Annandale, VA 22003
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO18 UNITED STATES CODE SS. 1350**

 

**In connection with the Quarterly Report ofGriffin Land & Nurseries, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/Afor the quarter ended February 26, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Periodic Report”), I, Frederick M.Danziger, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:**

 

**1.**               The Periodic Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

**2.**               The information containedin the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| ** ** |                                       | /s/  FREDERICK M. DANZIGER |
|------------|--------------------------------------------|----------------------------|
| ** ** | **Frederick  M. Danziger**                 |
| ** ** | **President  and Chief Executive Officer** |
| ** ** | **November **1, 2005                  |

 

----
Exhibit 32.1

                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.A. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of Sync2 Networks Corp., a Nevada
corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30 2011 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commision (the "Report"), John Moore as
Chief Executive Officier and Chief Financial Officier of the Company does hereby
certify, pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.A. ss.
1350), that to his knowledge:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the reguirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

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

January 17, 2013
                                            By /s/John Moore
                                               --------------------------------
                                               CEO/CFO/DIRECTOR
From: mkson57@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:38:15 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,

marv carlson

Highland, IN 46322
From: waterman482@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:13:41 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Emily Waterman

Marshfield, MO 65706
H. Res. 660 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 19, 2007. 

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

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 

the bill (H.R. 2761) to extend the Terrorism Insurance Program of the Department of the Treasury, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. 

All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived 

except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 

one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 

ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial 

Services. After general debate the bill shall be considered for 

amendment under the five-minute rule. The amendment in 

the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 

Financial Services now printed in the bill, modified by the 

amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee 

on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as 
2 

•HRES 660 EH 

adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. 

The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill 

for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute 

rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order 

against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further amendment 

to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except those printed 

in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 

the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in 

the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 

the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled 

by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to 

amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 

of the question in the House or in the Committee of the 

Whole. All points of order against such further amendments 

are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 

XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such further amendments as may have 

been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as 

ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 

without intervening motion except one motion to recommit 

with or without instructions. 
3 

•HRES 660 EH 

SEC. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 2761 

pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 

the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to a time designated by the Speaker. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDER GARCIA-DIAZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 19-73096 

Agency No. A205-385-710 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 8, 2021**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. 

Eder Garcia-Diaz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an 

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal 

and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

NOV 12 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-73096 

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations in 

immigration proceedings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 

2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. GarciaMilian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for

review.

Garcia-Diaz’s challenges to the BIA’s streamlining procedure fail. See 

Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 850-52 (9th Cir. 2003) (BIA’s 

streamlined decision did not violate due process); see also Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 

1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Garcia-Diaz 

failed to establish the harm he experienced or fears was or would be on account of 

a protected ground. See Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) 

(a personal dispute, standing alone, does not constitute persecution on account of a 

protected ground); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an 

applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or 

random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, 

Garcia-Diaz’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because 

Garcia-Diaz failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or 

with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See 
3 19-73096 

Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of 

torture). 

The stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.