alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: loretta1116@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:43:24 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,

Loretta Abbott

Littleton, CO 80127
Exhibit 32.1

                     CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO
                   SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Form 10-QSB of Bion Environmental Technologies, Inc.,
a company duly formed under the laws of Colorado (the "Company"), for the
quarter ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Mark A. Smith, President (Chief
Executive Officer) and Interim Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting
Officer) of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, 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.



February 6, 2008                       /s/ Mark A. Smith
                                       Mark A. Smith
                                       Chief Executive Officer and
                                       Principal Financial Officer


This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 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 Company for purposes
of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Bion Environmental Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by
Bion Environmental Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 13.1

Certification by the Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, Zhengdong Zhu, Chief Executive Officer of China Distance Education Holdings Limited (the Company), hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge, that the
Companys annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended September 30, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for the periods presented in the Report.

Date: March 31, 2010



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Zhengdong Zhu      
|Name:  |  | Zhengdong Zhu          
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sidike CONDE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-6624.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 31, 2001.

Decided June 11, 2001.

*71Sidike Conde, pro se. Harvey Eisenburg, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, MD, for appellee.

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Sidike Conde seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed 'under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000) and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *United States v. Conde,*Nos. CR-99-262-S; CA-01-830-S (D. Md. filed March 19, 2001, entered March 20, 2001; filed March 30, 2001, entered April 2, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case r

United States District Court

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

MARY A. THRESHER

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security

CASE NUMBER: C06-5071RBL

 Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried

and the jury has rendered its verdict.

 XX Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been

tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

 IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

That based upon the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, this

matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings.

 August 18, 2008 BRUCE RIFKIN 

Date Clerk

 s/Caroline M. Gonzalez 

Deputy Clerk
Case No. 13,658.

#### STUDER v. GLENN.

[3 Cranch, C. C. 650.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1829.

Apprentice — Indentures—Execution.

The father, with the consent of his son, fifteen years old, bound him to Glenn, as an apprentice. The son signed and sealed the indentures, but was not named as a party therein, nor was there any covenant on his part. The court refused to discharge him.

Mr. Hewitt had obtained a rule on the defendant, to show cause why Morris Studer should not be discharged from the service of the defendant, as an apprentice; at the return of which rule, he contended that the indentures were void, because there was no covenant on the part of the son. That the father could not bind him without his consent; and his signing and sealing the indentures, which contained no covenant on his part, was no evidence of his consent. The law of Virginia requires that he should be taught reading and writing; but, by these indentures, he is only to be taught ciphering. King v. Inhabitants of Arnesley, 3 Barn. & Aid. 584; Mary High-ton’s Case, 8 East, 25; Dowle’s Case, 8 Johns. 328.

THE COURT

(nem. con., but ORANCH. Chief Judge, doubting)

refused to discharge the apprentice, he having been fifteen years old at the date of the indentures, and having signed and sealed them, although they contain no covenant on his part.
Searched for **http://www.neh.gov/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.neh.gov/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1498

In Re: BEVERLY L. HENNAGER,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 

(1:15-cv-00149-LO-TCB)

Submitted: May 9, 2017 Decided: May 30, 2017

Before AGEE, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Beverly L. Hennager, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Beverly L. Hennager has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in which she asks 

this court to order the district court to disburse to her earnings derived from the sale of 

certain property, and to have voided various district court orders with which she 

disagrees. We conclude that Hennager is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary 

circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. 

Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Mandamus may not be used as a 

substitute for appeal, however. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 

2007). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to 

the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). 

It is clear that Hennager is using mandamus as a substitute for appeal and, in any 

event, she has not established a clear right to the relief sought. Accordingly, we deny the 

petition for writ of mandamus and deny as moot her motion to expedite. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in 

the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
From: mrollman1@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:28:52 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,

Michael Rollman

Valrico, FL 33596
From: wygal07@q.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:02:41 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,

Dianna W Morrow

Lander, WY 82520
| Skip to Content*Release Date: December 6, 2012*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**L.108 Monetary Authority 1** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-3 Filed 12/23/09 Page 1 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-3 Filed 12/23/09 Page 2 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-3 Filed 12/23/09 Page 3 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-3 Filed 12/23/09 Page 4 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-3 Filed 12/23/09 Page 5 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-3 Filed 12/23/09 Page 6 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-3 Filed 12/23/09 Page 7 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-3 Filed 12/23/09 Page 8 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-3 Filed 12/23/09 Page 9 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-3 Filed 12/23/09 Page 10 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-3 Filed 12/23/09 Page 11 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-3 Filed 12/23/09 Page 12 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-3 Filed 12/23/09 Page 13 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-3 Filed 12/23/09 Page 14 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-3 Filed 12/23/09 Page 15 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-3 Filed 12/23/09 Page 16 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-3 Filed 12/23/09 Page 17 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-3 Filed 12/23/09 Page 18 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-3 Filed 12/23/09 Page 19 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-3 Filed 12/23/09 Page 20 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-3 Filed 12/23/09 Page 21 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-3 Filed 12/23/09 Page 22 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-3 Filed 12/23/09 Page 23 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-3 Filed 12/23/09 Page 24 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-3 Filed 12/23/09 Page 25 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-3 Filed 12/23/09 Page 26 of 27
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187-3 Filed 12/23/09 Page 27 of 27
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 19

- 00381

- CV

I N THE M ATTER OF A.D. §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from

County Court at Law No. 1

of Wichita County (CCL1

- MH2019

- 0423)

January 7 , 2020

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

JUDGMENT

This cour t h as considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

w as no reversi ble error in the trial court’s October 2, 2019 “ Order to Authorize

Psychoactive Medication

. ” The tri al court ’ s ord er is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

B y /s/ Lee Gabriel

Justi ce Lee Gabriel
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

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

AUSTIN A. WILSON, )

)

Petitioner, ) CASE NO. C05-1865-RSL-MJB

)

v. ) REPORT AND

) RECOMMENDATION

WASHINGTON STATE )

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, )

et al., )

)

Respondents. )

_________________________________ )

Petitioner, who is proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 that he subsequently asked this court to construe a as a

habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. However, due to defects in petitioner’s

habeas petition, the court declined to order that the petition be served. Instead, on

December 7, 2005, the court issued an Order to Show Cause (Dkt. #15), identifying the

defects in petitioner’s habeas petition and granting him leave to amend the petition to

cure the deficiencies within 30 days or to show cause why his petition should not be

dismissed for failure to exhaust his claims. Petitioner’s response to the show cause order

was due by January 5, 2006. To date, he has not filed an amended petition or responded

to the Court’s order to show cause, and he has not requested an extension of time in

which to do so.

Case 2:05-cv-01865-RSL Document 16 Filed 02/08/06 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

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Page - 2

Accordingly, the undersigned recommends dismissal of this case pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to comply with the Court’s December, 2005 show cause

order. A proposed Order accompanies this Report and Recommendation.

DATED this 8th day of February, 2006.

AMONICA J. BENTON

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01865-RSL Document 16 Filed 02/08/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 10.15.1


 


FIRST AMENDMENT TO


10% FIXED SECURED CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY
NOTE


 


THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO 10% FIXED SECURED
CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into this 16th day of November 2017, by and
between HELIX TCS, INC. (the “Company”), and REDDIAMOND PARTNERS, LLC (“Lender”).


 


RECITALS


 


A.      The
Company and the Lender are parties to a 10% Fixed Secured Convertible Promissory Note (the “Agreement”),
signed April 26, 2017 in the face amount of $104,000.


 


B.       The
Company and the Lender desire to amend the Agreement upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth herein.


 


AGREEMENT


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the
recitals, the mutual covenants and agreements set forth herein and in the Agreement, and for other good and valuable consideration,
the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:


 





1.       Each party agrees
that the original “Principal Sum” and original Total Face Value, upon the Issuance Date. is $85,800.


 


2.       Each
party agrees that the Principal Amount, including accrued interest, as of the date of this Amendment, is $131,107.17.


 





2.       The
definition of “Conversion Price” is deleted and replaced with the following:




 


“Conversion Price” shall be
equal to a 40% discount to the lowest one-day Volume Average Weighted Price (“VWAP”) during the 30 trading days preceding
such conversion.”


 


3.       The
definition of “Maturity Date” is deleted and replaced with the following:


 


“Maturity Date” shall be the
6-month anniversary of the date of this Amendment.”


 


4.       The
interest rate of the Agreement, effective on the Issuance Date, is 5% per annum.


 


5.       All
references to prepayment are deleted and the parties agree that the Agreement is prepayable at any time at 110% of the unpaid principal
and accrued interest.


 





6.       In the event the Company tenders payment
in full on or before November 21, 2017, then the principal amount outstanding will be reduced by 15%.




 


7.       Except
as specifically amended or modified by this Amendment, the terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain unimpaired, unaffected
and unchanged in every particular as set forth therein. Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein shall have the
meanings set forth in the Agreement.


 


8.       This
Amendment may be executed in several counterparts and delivered by electronic transmission, each of which shall be deemed an original,
but which counterparts shall together constitute one and the same Amendment.


 






    


     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this Amendment to be executed and delivered as of the date first written above.


 


	 	HELIX TCS, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Zachary L. Venegas, CEO
	 	 	Zachary L. Venegas, CEO
	 	 	 
	 	LENDER:
	 	 
	 	REDDIAMOND PARTNERS, LLC
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Neil B Rock
	 	Name:	Neil B Rock
	 	Title:	Member
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74

 38

 39

 40

 41

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

07/19

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 19 Jul 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.92 N 77.01 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■

■

★ ■

■

■ ■

★

●

●

●

●

★ ●

●

● ●
July 14, 1953

No. 57431.

Suit 4748.

#### Keuffel & Esser Co. *v.*United States.

C. D. 1428 affirmed March 11, 1953. C. A. D. 516.