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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:55:33 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,

John Mileusnic

Schererville, IN 46375
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

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W. D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD DUANE FERGUSON,

 Defendant.

Case No. 06-5006M

DETENTION ORDER

THE COURT, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3142, finds that no condition or combination

of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and/or the safety of any

other person and the community.

This finding is based on 1) the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) charged, including whether the offense is a

crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; 2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 3) the history and characteristics of

the person including those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)(B); and 4) the nature and seriousness of the danger release would

impose to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

 ( ) Conviction of a Federal offense involving a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(A)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(B)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of 10+ years as prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.§801 et seq.), the

Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.§951 et seq.) Or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46

U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.)

 ( ) Convictions of two or more offenses described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(1) of two or more

State or local offenses that would have been offenses described in said subparagraphs if a circumstance giving rise to

Federal jurisdiction had existed, or a combination of such offenses.

Safety Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant is currently on probation/supervision resulting from a prior offense.

 ( ) Defendant was on bond on other charges at time of alleged occurrences herein.

 ( ) Defendant’s prior criminal history.

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant’s lack of sufficient ties to the community.

 ( ) Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer.

 ( ) Detainer(s)/Warrant(s) from other jurisdictions.

 ( ) Failures to appear for past court proceedings.

 ( ) Past conviction for escape.

Other:

 (/) Defendant stipulated to detention without prejudice

 

Order of Detention

< The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal.

< The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.

< The defendant shall on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, be delivered

to a United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

 January 13, 2006.

__s/ Karen l. Strombom_________________

Karen L Strombom, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cr-05040-RBL Document 8 Filed 01/13/06 Page 1 of 1
# Επίσημη Εφημερίδα C 122A/16 Α

| | ISSN 1977-0901 |
| --- | --- |
| Επίσημη Εφημερίδα
  της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης | C 122A |
| | |
| Έκδοση στην ελληνική γλώσσα | Ανακοινώσεις και Πληροφορίες | 58ό έτος16 Απριλίου 2015 |

ISSN 1977-0901

Επίσημη Εφημερίδα

της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης

C 122A

Έκδοση στην ελληνική γλώσσα

Ανακοινώσεις και Πληροφορίες

58ό έτος16 Απριλίου 2015

---

| Ανακοίνωση αριθ | Περιεχόμενα | Σελίδα |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Διορθωτικά |
| 2015/C 122A/01 | Διορθωτικό στην προκήρυξη γενικών διαγωνισμών — Διοικητικοί υπάλληλοι (AD 5/AD 7) ειδικευμένοι στη νομική έρευνα — EPSO/AD/295/15 — Νομικοί βουλγαρικής νομικής κατάρτισης (BG) — EPSO/AD/296/15 — Νομικοί γερμανικής νομικής κατάρτισης (DE) — EPSO/AD/297/15 — Νομικοί κροατικής νομικής κατάρτισης (HR) — EPSO/AD/298/15 — Νομικοί ιρλανδικής νομικής κατάρτισης (IE) — EPSO/AD/299/15 — Νομικοί λιθουανικής νομικής κατάρτισης (LT) — EPSO/AD/300/15 — Νομικοί σλοβακικής νομικής κατάρτισης (SK) — ( ΕΕ C 68 A της 26.2.2015 ) | 1 |

Ανακοίνωση αριθ

Περιεχόμενα

Σελίδα

Διορθωτικά

2015/C 122A/01

Διορθωτικό στην προκήρυξη γενικών διαγωνισμών — Διοικητικοί υπάλληλοι (AD 5/AD 7) ειδικευμένοι στη νομική έρευνα — EPSO/AD/295/15 — Νομικοί βουλγαρικής νομικής κατάρτισης (BG) — EPSO/AD/296/15 — Νομικοί γερμανικής νομικής κατάρτισης (DE) — EPSO/AD/297/15 — Νομικοί κροατικής νομικής κατάρτισης (HR) — EPSO/AD/298/15 — Νομικοί ιρλανδικής νομικής κατάρτισης (IE) — EPSO/AD/299/15 — Νομικοί λιθουανικής νομικής κατάρτισης (LT) — EPSO/AD/300/15 — Νομικοί σλοβακικής νομικής κατάρτισης (SK) — ( ΕΕ C 68 A της 26.2.2015 )

( ΕΕ C 68 A της 26.2.2015 )

1

---

| EL | |
| --- | --- |

EL

---

Διορθωτικά

| 16.4.2015 | EL | Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης | CA 122/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2015

EL

Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης

CA 122/1

---

Διορθωτικό στην προκήρυξη γενικών διαγωνισμών — Διοικητικοί υπάλληλοι (AD 5/AD 7) ειδικευμένοι στη νομική έρευνα — EPSO/AD/295/15 — Νομικοί βουλγαρικής νομικής κατάρτισης (BG) — EPSO/AD/296/15 — Νομικοί γερμανικής νομικής κατάρτισης (DE) — EPSO/AD/297/15 — Νομικοί κροατικής νομικής κατάρτισης (HR) — EPSO/AD/298/15 — Νομικοί ιρλανδικής νομικής κατάρτισης (IE) — EPSO/AD/299/15 — Νομικοί λιθουανικής νομικής κατάρτισης (LT) — EPSO/AD/300/15 — Νομικοί σλοβακικής νομικής κατάρτισης (SK)

(
  Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης C 68 A, της 26ης Φεβρουαρίου 2015
  )

(2015/C 122 A/01)

Στη σελίδα 2, τίτλος I, σημείο 3:

αντί:

«Προθεσμία (συμπεριλαμβανομένης της επικύρωσης): 31 Μαρτίου 2015 στις 12 το μεσημέρι, ώρα Βρυξελλών.»

διάβαζε:

«Προθεσμία (συμπεριλαμβανομένης της επικύρωσης): 9 Απριλίου 2015 στις 12 το μεσημέρι, ώρα Βρυξελλών.».

---
No. P69/103.

protest 63/14388(B) (San Francisco).

No. P69/104.

protest 66/59333 (New York).

No. P69/105.

protest 68/15569 (New York).

#### Import Associates of America, Inc. *v.*United States, Dan Brechner Co. *v.*United States, Dan Brechner & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of batteries, classified as entireties with flashlights, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Torch Mfg.*Co., *Inc.*v. *United States*(57 Cust. Ct. 521, C.D. 2863), wherein said batteries were held to be separately dutiable and that no separate value for each of said items had been returned by the appraiser, the protests were dismissed and the matter remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement to determine the separate value of the flashlights and batteries in the mamier provided by law (28 U.S.C., section 2636 (d)).
Exhibit 32.2








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





I, Charles John Dean, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of MedCareers Group, Inc. on Form 10-K for the annual period ended January 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of MedCareers Group, Inc.





By:/s/ Charles John Dean


Charles John Dean


Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Accounting Officer/Principal Financial Officer)





May 14, 2010
No. 60541.

#### -United Sales Company *v.*United States,

protests 270905-K/7328, etc. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

The protests were dismissed.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Geologyand ore deposits of Shoshone County, Idaho**
 
Report | Plates:�0102
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:732
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000958498
 
July 31, 2018
From: brriale@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:51:41 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,

Barry & Sue Riale

Whitney Point, NY 13862
EXHIBIT 32


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned officer of the Opera Jet International Ltd.
(the "Company"), hereby certify to my knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2010 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects,
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

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.


                             /s/ Martin Hudec
                                 Chief Accounting Officer
                                 Chief Financial Officer
Date: April 13, 2011
From: randmcurt@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:55:49 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,

Royce Curtis

Katy, TX 77450
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the amended Annual Report of jetPADS, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert Kanaat, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of 4 day of April, 2012.  /s/ Robert Kanaat Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
Before the First Division,

September 16, 1959

No. 63348.

protest 58/4054 (New York).

#### Richter Bros., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fried herring similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Richter Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(44 C.C.P.A. 128, C.A.D. 649), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: dmalenock@zoominternet.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:30:05 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Debbie Malenock

Medina, OH 44256
No. 64527.

#### Hirschberg Schutz & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 266498-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of narrow woven fabrics of cotton similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Beer Stern Import Corp.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 294, C.D. 1944), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 68958.

#### Ross Products, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 59/22895 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of permanently fitted plastic eases similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 67837, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Robert C. Sepucha, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SPARTA, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
and have:  a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known
to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,
as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board
of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting. August 11, 2004 /s/ Robert C. SepuchaRobert C. SepuchaChief Executive Officer
 - 21 -