alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: jansey01@otmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:31:23 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,

Jan Sey

Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250
EXHIBIT 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  The undersigned, Arthur Bertagnolli, the Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board of Directors and Treasurer of SAVOY ENERGY CORPORATION (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:  1. The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 2 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement this 5th day of October 2012.  /s/ Arthur BertagnolliArthur BertagnolliChief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to SAVOY ENERGY CORPORATION and will be retained by SAVOY ENERGY CORPORATION and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Brian EVANS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Frank PETERSON; et al. Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-16528.

D.C. No. CV-04-00135-HG.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2005.*

Decided July 13, 2005.

*541Brian Evans, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.

Nenad Krek, Carlsmith Ball LLP, Honolulu, HI, Bruce E. Van Dalsem, Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver & Hedges, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants— Appellees.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, RAWLINSON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Brian Evans, a professional singer, appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his diversity action alleging fraud and breach of a recording contract against Frank Peterson, a German music producer, Nemo Studios, a German music recording company, and Sarah Brightman, a British singer. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s determination that it lacks personal jurisdiction, *Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co.,*374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir.2004), and review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of leave to amend, *Gompper v. VISX, Inc.,**542298 F.3d 893, 898 (9th Cir.2002). We affirm.

Evans did not allege that the defendants had “continuous and systematic general business contacts” with Hawaii upon which general jurisdiction could be based. *Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall,*466 U.S. 408, 416, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984). Similarly, Evans failed to show a basis for specific jurisdiction because he did not allege facts indicating that his claim arose from the defendants’ forum-related acts, that the defendants purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting activities in Hawaii, that the defendants’ conduct and connection with Hawaii were such that they could have reasonably anticipated being haled into court there, and that jurisdiction over the defendants would comport with fair play and substantial justice. *See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz,*471 U.S. 462, 474-76, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). Accordingly, the district court properly concluded that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants.

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed Evans’ complaint without leave to amend, because the moving papers and oral argument revealed that amendment would be futile. *See Gompper,*298 F.3d at 898.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

January 7, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00698

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.R.B., JR., a child

, From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, T exas

Trial Court No. 2017

- PA

- 02035 Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file a brief is granted. We order the brief due January 21, 2020.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justic e

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 7th day of January, 2020

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Cl erk of Court
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2016

- 0459 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2015

- NM

- 081

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then ou t of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance)

Work

- hours

(include

access, testing,

and close

- up) Labor

cost

(@$8 5 / h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Inspection 1 1

. 0 $ 935.00 $ 935.00 

### 95 $ 88,825.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.0 0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### Th e known number of products in compliance: 

### 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 88,825



### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $ 

### 0

On

- Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work

- hours

(include access,

testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product



### Replacement 12.0 $ 1,020.00 $0 $ 1,020.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00



### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

Regulat ory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appr opriate to include specific requirements for

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Wesley Don Davis, Appellant

No. 06

- 19

- 00075

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 369th District Court of Cherokee County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 19903 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Ju stice Stevens, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. W e note that the appellant, Wesley Don Davis, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED OCTOBER 8, 201 9 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Case No. 10,237.

#### In le NICHOLS.

[See 1 Fed. 842.]
SCOTT A. THOMPSON Executive Director April 22, 2016 OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT Of tNVIP.ONMENTAL QUAliTY 

### OKlAHOMA DEPARTMENTOF ENVIRONMENTAlQUAliTY

Mr. Jeffrey Robinson, Chief, Air Permits Section U.S. Envirornnental ProtectionAgency- Region VI (6MM) 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 Dallas, TX75202-2733 MARY FALLIN Governor

Subject: Clarification of Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule Rescission Clause in OAC 252:100-8-31. Dear Mr. Robinson: The Oklahoma Department ofEnvirornnental Quality (DEQ), Air Quality Division is providing clarification pertaining to the January 18, 2013 State Implementation Plan submittal of OAC 252:100-8 and the Part 7 provisions that address the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule. In particular, EPA has requested clarification on DEQ's application of the so-called rescission clause set forth within the definition for the term "subject to regulation" included in Section 8- 31. DEQ intends to implementthe rescission clause, inpart, as follows: 1) Pursuantto EPA'stimely interpretation ofarelevant Court action; and 2) DEQ will providepublicnotice ofany rescission. If you have questions, please contact Cheryl E. Bradley, Air Quality Division, Department of Envirornnental Quality at ( 405) 702-4157.

Eddie Terrill, Director Air Quality Division

cc: AdinaWiley

707 NORTH ROBINSON, P.O. BOX 1677, OKLAHOMACITY, OKLAHOMA73101-1677 printed on recycled paper with soy Ink 

# .. ....
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the WESTERN DISTRICT of WASHINGTON

RICHARD K. McDONALD,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

)

)

)

)

) C05-1827 RSM

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner

of Social Security,

 

 Defendant.

)

)

) MINUTE ORDER

)

)

This action has been reassigned to the Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez, United

States District Judge. All future documents filed in this case must bear the cause

number C05-1827 RSM and bear the Judge’s name in the upper right hand corner of

the document.

It appearing from the files and records herein that this is an appropriate

proceeding to refer to a full-time United States Magistrate Judge for the purposes

hereinafter set forth, pursuant to Local Rule MJR 4(A)(4) and as authorized by

Mathews, Secretary of HEW vs Weber, 432 US 261 (1976), now therefore,

Pursuant to the General Order entered by the Chief Judge on 30 April 2004, IT

IS ORDERED that the above entitled action is hereby referred to the Honorable Monica

J. Benton, United States Magistrate Judge, who is directed and empowered to review 

Case 2:05-cv-01827-RSM Document 3 Filed 11/09/05 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

Dated this 9th day of November, 2005

Bruce Rifkin, Clerk of Court

 /S/ PETER H. VOELKER

Peter H. Voelker, Deputy Clerk

the administrative record, and to submit proposed findings and conclusions, and

recommended disposition. The procedure for review of those recommendations shall

be in accordance with FRCP 72(b) and with Local Rule MJR 4(c).

Case 2:05-cv-01827-RSM Document 3 Filed 11/09/05 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 425 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 425

 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Luis Posada 
 Carriles, mastermind of the vicious attack on Cubana Airlines Flight 
  455 and perpetrator of numerous other acts of terrorism, should be 
 certified as a terrorist and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the 
                                  law.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 21, 2007

Mr. Serrano (for himself, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. 
  Berman, and Ms. Lee) submitted the following resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Luis Posada 
 Carriles, mastermind of the vicious attack on Cubana Airlines Flight 
  455 and perpetrator of numerous other acts of terrorism, should be 
 certified as a terrorist and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the 
                                  law.

Whereas the attack of Cubana Airlines Flight 455 in October of 1976 took the 
        lives of 73 innocent people, making it one of the worst terrorist 
        attacks on a plane in the Americas;
Whereas declassified FBI and CIA documents report Posada's participation in 
        planning the attack on Flight 455;
Whereas, in 1985, Posada escaped from a Venezuelan prison after being charged 
        with the bombing of Flight 455, only to continue his campaign of violent 
        attacks on innocent civilians;
Whereas the Department of Justice has failed to present an extradition case to a 
        Federal court at the request of the Venezuelan Government, despite 
        treaty obligations which call for such actions;
Whereas a United States District Court threw out all charges against Posada on 
        May 8, 2007, allowing Posada to go free days before he was set to be 
        tried for immigration fraud;
Whereas the Department of Justice has described Posada as ``an unrepentant 
        criminal and admitted mastermind of terrorist plots''; and
Whereas section 236A(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
        1226a(a)) provides authority to certify Posada as an alien terrorist and 
        thus detain him: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That Expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives that Luis Posada Carriles, mastermind of the vicious 
attack on Cubana Airlines Flight 455 and perpetrator of numerous other 
acts of terrorism, should be certified as a terrorist and prosecuted to 
the fullest extent of the law.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**Certification**

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

**(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)**

 

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Ascent Capital Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2011 (the “Form 10-K”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of December 31, 2011 and 2010 and for the three years ended December 31, 2011.

 

 
| Dated: | February 29, 2012 |                                              | /s/  William R. Fitzgerald |
|--------|------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|
|   |                   | William   R. Fitzgerald                           |
|   |                   | Chairman,   President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 
|   |                     |                                                |
|--------|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
| Dated: | February 29,   2012 |                                                | /s/   Michael Meyers |
|   |                     | Michael   Meyers                                    |
|   |                     | Senior   Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   |                     | (Principal   Accounting Officer)                    |
|        |                          |                                                     |  |

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.

 

----
Order filed February 11, 2014.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 14

- 00032

- CV

____________ HENRY SIMPSON , Appellant

V.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, Appellee

On Appeal from the 412th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 67239I



### O R D E R

The clerk’s record was filed February 5, 2014. Our review has determined
that a relevant item has been omitted from the clerk's record. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c). The record does not contain the judgment being appealed.
The Brazoria County District Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record on or before March 11, 2014, containing the judgment being appealed.If the omitted item is not part of the case file, the district clerk is

directed to fi le a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the omitted item is not a part of the case file.

PER CURIAM
No. 58250.

Suit 4769.

#### United States *v.*The Josebra Company.

C. D. 1476 affirmed February 3, 1954. C. A. D. 552. (Note: This appeal was substituted in lieu of suit 4766, reported above in Abstract 58249.)
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-17-0000665 23-MAY-2018 01:34 PM
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

In connection with the Quarterly Report of NorthernTechnologies International Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ending November 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Matthew C. Wolsfeld,Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary 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, to the best of my knowledge andbelief:

 

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

 

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

 
|                                                       |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Matthew C. Wolsfeld, CPA                              |   |
| Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary       |   |
| (principal financial officer and principal accounting |   |
| officer)                                              |   |
|                                                  |   |
| Circle  Pines, Minnesota                              |   |
| January 14, 2010                                 |   |

 

----
From: larryhau2002@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:23:06 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask that you rescind the requirement that insurance companies cover

contraceptives (including those that induce abortions) and sterilization procedures. I do not believe that

those who are morally opposed to these drugs/procedures should be forced by our government to

provide them. I personally am opposed to abortion but not to sterilization. However, that is not my

reason for objecting to this law. Even though I do not believe sterilization is immoral, I understand

other people's objection and would never force them to provide it. The liberals in this country often say

that conservatives try to impose their morality on other people. How about the liberals respecting

conservatives' moral beliefs for a change?

Sincerely,

Larry Hau

Aurora, IL 60504
OFFICER
CERTIFICATE
  March
6, 2009
  JP
Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.
 Commercial
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
 Series
2007-C1
 Pooling
and Servicing Agreement
   Pursuant
to the requirements of that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the
"Agreement"), it is hereby certified that on behalf of Midland Loan Services,
Inc. (the "Servicer"), (i) a review of the Servicer's activities during the
calendar year 2008 (the "Reporting Period") and of its performance under the
Agreement has been made under the undersigned officer's supervision; (ii) to the
best of the undersigned officer's knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer
has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
respects throughout the Reporting Period; and (iii) the Servicer has not
received any notice during the Reporting Period regarding qualification, or
challenging the status, of any REMIC formed pursuant to the Agreement from the
IRS or any other governmental agency or body.
 
 MIDLAND
      LOAN SERVICES, INC./S/
      Steven W. SmithSteven
      W. SmithPresident
      and Chief Operating Officer