alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Computer.services@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:48:02 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Donald Yealy

Loveland, CO 80537
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-2 Filed 12/23/09 Page 1 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-2 Filed 12/23/09 Page 2 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-2 Filed 12/23/09 Page 3 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-2 Filed 12/23/09 Page 4 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-2 Filed 12/23/09 Page 5 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-2 Filed 12/23/09 Page 6 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-2 Filed 12/23/09 Page 7 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-2 Filed 12/23/09 Page 8 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-2 Filed 12/23/09 Page 9 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-2 Filed 12/23/09 Page 10 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-2 Filed 12/23/09 Page 11 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-2 Filed 12/23/09 Page 12 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-2 Filed 12/23/09 Page 13 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-2 Filed 12/23/09 Page 14 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-2 Filed 12/23/09 Page 15 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-2 Filed 12/23/09 Page 16 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-2 Filed 12/23/09 Page 17 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-2 Filed 12/23/09 Page 18 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-2 Filed 12/23/09 Page 19 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-2 Filed 12/23/09 Page 20 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-2 Filed 12/23/09 Page 21 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-2 Filed 12/23/09 Page 22 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-2 Filed 12/23/09 Page 23 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-2 Filed 12/23/09 Page 24 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-2 Filed 12/23/09 Page 25 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-2 Filed 12/23/09 Page 26 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-2 Filed 12/23/09 Page 27 of 27
No. P67/10.

No. P67/11.

#### M. Pressner & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 61/3536, etc. (New York).

#### S. P. Eisner & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 62/12228 (New York).

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of miniature pocket knives similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Paul E. Semau, Inc.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 514, Abstract 65737), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed December 22, 2022 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-01089-CV IN THE INTEREST OF I. O. AND R.O., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-11-09013 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burn s, Justice Molberg, and Justice Pedersen, III Opinion by Chief Justice Burns This appeal from the trial court’s A ugust 13, 2021 order in suit to modify parent-child relationship wa s filed October 13, 2022. Be cause the appeal was filed well-beyond any timeframe allowed under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, which governs the time for filing notices of appeal in civil case s, we questioned our jurisdiction over the appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.1 (providing timeframes for perfecting civil appeal ranging from twenty days from date judgment is signed to six months from date judgment is signed); Brashear v. Victoria Gardens of McKinney,
L.L.C. , 302 S.W.3d. 542, 545 (Tex. App.—Dal las 2009, no pet.) (op. on reh’g) (timely filing of notice of appeal is jurisdictional); see also T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.3 (allowing for fifteen day extension to file notice of appeal).–2– In jurisdictional briefing filed at our request, appellant does not dispute the appeal was filed outside the periods estab lished by rule 26.1, but he maintains we have jurisdiction because the order is vo id—it was signed outside the trial court’s plenary power, ten years after the origin al order concerning the parent-child relationship was rendere d—and a void order can be challenged at a ny time. The trial court, however, acquired and re tained continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over matters concerning the parent-child relationship when it rendered the original order, and it had the authority to exercise its ju risdiction to modify that order. See T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN
. §§ 155.01-155.003. Regardle ss, we cannot exercise jurisdiction over an untimely appeal. Accordingly, because the appeal was not timely filed, we dismiss the appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(a).

221089F.P05 /Robert D. Burns, III / ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF I.O. AND R.O., CHILDREN
No. 05-22-01089-CV On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-11-09013. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns, Justices Molberg and Pedersen, III participating.
In accordance with this Court’ s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.
We ORDER that appellee Ronda Do recover her costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant Jorge Olivas, Jr.
Judgment entered December 22, 2022.
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., THE MASSACHUSETTS IN STITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, Plaintiffs

- Appellants

v.
LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC., Defendant

- Cross

- Appellant

______________________
2009

- 1372, 2009

- 1380, 2009

- 1416, 2009

- 1417,

______________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Massach usetts in No s . 06

- CV

- 11585
, 06

- CV

11109 , Judge Rya W. Zobel.

______________________
ON PETITION FOR REHEARI NG EN BANC

______________________
Before P ROST , Chief Judge
, N EWMAN , L OURIE , L INN , D YK , M OORE , O’M ALLEY , R EYNA , W ALLACH , and H UGHES , Circuit Judges

. *

* Circuit Judges Taranto, Chen, and Stoll did not participate.AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES , INC

. v. LIMELIGHT NETWORKS , INC

. 2

P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R A petition for rehearing en banc was filed by Plai ntiffs

- Appellants Akamai Technologies, Inc. and The Ma ssachusetts Institute of Technology and a response thereto was invited by the court and filed by Limelight Networks, Inc.
The petition for rehearing was considered by the panel that heard the appeal, and thereafter the petition for rehearing en banc, response, and briefs of amici curiae were referred to the circuit judges who are authorized to request a poll of whether to rehear the appeal en banc. A poll was requested and taken, and the court has decided that the appeal warrants en banc consideration. Upon consideration thereof,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) The petition for rehearing en banc filed by Akamai Technologies, Inc. and The Massachusetts Institute of Technology is granted. (2) The court’s opinion of May 13, 2015 , is vacated, the court’s en banc opinion is issued herewith, and the case is returned to the merits panel for further proceedings

. F OR THE C OURT
August 13, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date D aniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court
Exhibit 99.4

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

In connection with
the annual report of Sandstorm Gold Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the period ended December 31, 2013
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Nolan Watson, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

(1) the Report fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|Date: March 11, 2014 | /s/ Nolan Watson       
|-------------------- | -----------------------
|                     | Nolan Watson           
|                     | Chief Executive Officer



A signed original
of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sandstorm Gold Ltd. and will be retained by Sandstorm
Gold Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification
accompanies the annual report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Registrant for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.

1

---









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

In connection with
the annual report of Sandstorm Gold Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the period ended December 31, 2013
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Erfan Kazemi, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

(1) the Report fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|Date: March 11, 2014 | /s/ Erfan Kazemi       
|-------------------- | -----------------------
|                     | Erfan Kazemi           
|                     | Chief Financial Officer



A signed original
of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sandstorm Gold Ltd. and will be retained by Sandstorm
Gold Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification
accompanies the annual report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Registrant for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.

2
Case 2:05-cv-01662-JLR Document 1 Filed 10/03/05 Page 1 of 12
Case 2:05-cv-01662-JLR Document 1 Filed 10/03/05 Page 2 of 12
Case 2:05-cv-01662-JLR Document 1 Filed 10/03/05 Page 3 of 12
Case 2:05-cv-01662-JLR Document 1 Filed 10/03/05 Page 4 of 12
Case 2:05-cv-01662-JLR Document 1 Filed 10/03/05 Page 5 of 12
Case 2:05-cv-01662-JLR Document 1 Filed 10/03/05 Page 6 of 12
Case 2:05-cv-01662-JLR Document 1 Filed 10/03/05 Page 7 of 12
Case 2:05-cv-01662-JLR Document 1 Filed 10/03/05 Page 8 of 12
Case 2:05-cv-01662-JLR Document 1 Filed 10/03/05 Page 9 of 12
Case 2:05-cv-01662-JLR Document 1 Filed 10/03/05 Page 10 of 12
Case 2:05-cv-01662-JLR Document 1 Filed 10/03/05 Page 11 of 12
Case 2:05-cv-01662-JLR Document 1 Filed 10/03/05 Page 12 of 12
Exhibit 32.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
         PURSUANT TO 18 W.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED AND PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002,

The undersigned Chief Executive Officer and acting Principal Financial Officer,
or persons fulfilling similar functions, each certify:

     (i)  That the financial information included in this Annual Report fairly
          presents in all material respects the financial condition and results
          of operations of the Company as of June 30, 2009 and for the periods
          presented in the report; and

     (ii) That the Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of
          Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934


Date: September 28, 2009       By: /s/ Helen Siwak
                                  ----------------------------------------------
                               Title: CEO and acting Principal Financial Officer
From: jgeiger47@frontier.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:49:29 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,

Judy Geiger

Port Clinton, OH 43452
|               | (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. |

|  Date: November 13, 2009                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |                      |                     | /s/ Dirk A. Montgomery                            |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|
|                                                              |                      |      | Dirk A. Montgomery                                |
|                                                         |                      |      | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
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

VICKIE L. ECKERLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

CASE NO. C05-5682JKA

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Plaintiff does not appear to have

funds available to afford the $250.00 filing fee.

The clerk is directed to issue summonses submitted by plaintiff to enable plaintiff to properly serve

copies of the complaint on the appropriate parties. Plaintiff shall note that it is her responsibility to

properly serve copies of the complaint along with appropriate summons as required by Rule 4 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 1st day of November, 2005.

/s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05682-FDB Document 2 Filed 11/01/05 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Osteotech, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael J. Jeffries,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


                                            /S/ Michael J. Jeffries
                                            --------------------------------
                                            Michael J. Jeffries
                                            Chief Financial Officer
                                            (Principal Financial Officer and
                                            Chief Accounting Officer)
                                            April 23, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to and will be retained by Osteotech, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Before the Second Division,

September 27, 1966

No. P66/231. —

No. P66/232. —

No. P66/233. —

#### Albert F. Maurer Company *v.*United States, protest 63/21214 (Philadelphia). Robert Bosch Corporation *v.*United States, protests 64/9105, 64/9106, and 64/9113 (New York). Robert Bosch Corp. *v.*United States, protests 64/23013 and 62/13258 (New York).

*811Bao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of spark plugs similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Lodge Spark Plug Co.*v. *United States*(49 Cust. Ct. 158, C.D. 2379), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: dbrandt3@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:06:11 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,

Dennis & Brenda Brandt

Onalaska, WI 54650
Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 354 Filed 11/09/09 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 354 Filed 11/09/09 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 354 Filed 11/09/09 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 354 Filed 11/09/09 Page 4 of 4