alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: rfyffe51@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:39:26 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,

Rick Fyffe

Palacios, TX 77465
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

MICHAEL MILAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

PIERCE COUNTY et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5842FDB

ORDER ADOPTING

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal of the cause of action against the remaining

defendant, Susan Lay, a Washington State Department of Corrections records officer. Plaintiff

alleges that a Pierce County warrant for a misdemeanor was erroneously entered into the

Washington State Criminal Information Center as a felony warrant, resulting in Susan Lay causing a

detainer to be served upon Plaintiff, which caused him to be placed in a more secure environment

than a camp setting. The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal because no facts are alleged

showing that Defendant Lay violated any right or duty owed to the Defendant by serving him a copy

of a detainer that other persons had entered into the system. Moreover, Plaintiff did not respond to

Defendant Lay’s motion to dismiss. 

Subsequent to the Report and Recommendation being filed, Plaintiff filed a “Motion To Stay

Pending Release 9-28-07.” Plaintiff states he is seeking representation by counsel and he also asserts

Case 3:05-cv-05842-FDB Document 48 Filed 06/11/07 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

ORDER

Page - 2

that the memorandum of the detainer that Lay received referenced a charge of Assault in the Fourth

Degree that he asserts is “clearly a misdemeanor complaint.” The Court construes this motion as

opposition to the Report and Recommendation. 

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the Report and Recommendation should be rejected

under the circumstances, and the Court will adopt it. 

 The Court, having reviewed the Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. # 45), the Report and

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold, objections to the report and

recommendation, and the remaining record, does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) Susan Lay’s motion to be dismissed from this action for failure to state a claim is

GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff, counsel for defendant,

and to the Hon. J. Kelley Arnold .

DATED this 11th day of June 2007.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05842-FDB Document 48 Filed 06/11/07 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We have issued our reports dated February 27, 2009 and June 20, 2008, with respect to the financial statements in the
Annual Report of Digimarc Corporation on Form 10-K for the period from August 2, 2008 to December 31, 2008 and for the two years ended December 31, 2007. We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statement of Digimarc Corporation on Form 10 (File No. 001-34108, effective
October 16, 2008).

/s/
GRANT THORNTON LLP

Portland,
Oregon
February 27, 2009

---
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) (Mod. 10/93) Judgment in a Civil Case "

United States District Court

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

DAVID KING and RHONDA KING,

 JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

CASE NUMBER: C05-5675RBL

KALAMA SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 402

and JAMES SUTTON, 

[XX] 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 as follows:

Judgment is hereby entered FOR Defendants.

 BRUCE RIFKIN 

Dated: December 3, 2007 Clerk

 s/Jean Boring 

 (By) Deputy Clerk

Case 3:05-cv-05675-RBL Document 247 Filed 12/03/07 Page 1 of 1
Case No. 8,834.

#### MACK v. BAKER et al.

[5 Reporter, 492; 1 5 Wkly. Notes Cas. 212.]

Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

March 26, 1878.

Promissory Note — Collateral Security— Holder for Value.

A holder of a promissory note as collateral security is not a purchaser for value.

Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence. Assumpsit on a promissory note made by defendants to the order of one Zohn and by him indorsed to the plaintiff. The affidavit of defence alleged that the note was given in renewal of another for which the defendants never received any consideration; that the original note was given to Cummings & Co. to be discounted by them for the defendants’ benefit; that it was not so discounted, but was passed by them to Zohn to secure an antecedent debt due him by Cummings & Co.

Harold Goodwin, for the rule.

The de-fence that the note was given to plaintiff as collateral only, although perhaps established in Pennsylvania and New York [Coddington v. Bay, 20 Johns. 037] 2 has been expressly declared invalid by the supreme court of the United States. Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet [41 U. S.] 15; Byles, Bills, 124. The renewal of the note implies forbearance of itself a sufficient consideration.

Jos. L. Tull, contra.

There is sufficient evidence of fraud to put the plaintiff on proof of having given value. Cummings v. Boyd [83 Pa. St. 372]; Royer v. Bank [Id. 248].

1

 [Reprinted from 5 Reporter, 492, by permission.]

2

 [Prom 5 Wkly. Notes Cas. 212.]

CADWALADER, District Judge.

After consideration I do not doubt the correctness of the decision of the supreme court of the state in Royer v. Bank, supra. There is an extra-judicial remark of Story, J., in Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. [41 U. S.] 15, in which he holds that the taking of a note, simply as collateral security, is a sufficient consideration and gives the purchaser a better title than the indorser had; but this is no part of the real decision, which is that, where the note is taken in payment, the consi deration is sufficient. Where time or indulgence is given, or something done to change the relation of the parties to the original consideration, the ease is different, but here the defence is sufficient according to Royer v. Bank. The doubt I had of the case was as to the renewal of the note,— whether that was not equivalent to giving time. It is so generally, unless the ordinary effect is negatived by peculiar circumstances. Here the time given was on the collateral and not on the original debt, and could not suspend the right of action, as has been often decided. It is unnecessary to consider the supplemental affidavit. Rule discharged.
From: efr.fred@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:47:34 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,

Ronald Eklund

Saint James, MN 56081
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          12,655
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   50,420
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 947,471
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           40,117
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                          00
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   947,471
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                78,296
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,269
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
1 

### Troutman, Jake (FAA)

From: Troutman, Jake (FAA)

Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 10:30 AM

To: 'adsuav@gmail.com'

Cc: Pappas, Rob (FAA)

Subject: Request for Additional Information - GD LLC

Dear Mr. Hodges:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA

‐ 2015

‐ 1779). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

* Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 8900.1,

Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove closed

‐ set filming from

your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non

‐ proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any

proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e

‐ mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us

to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 8/5/15. If we do not receive

the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267

‐ 9521.

Sincerely,

Jake J Troutman

Program Analyst | Rulemaking

FAA Office of Aviation Safety

Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

202

‐ 267

‐ 9521
No. 59774.

#### Abercrombie & Fitch Company *v.*United States,

protest 252249-K (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of men’s knitted half-hose in chief value of wool, valued at over $1.75 per dozen pairs, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
CERTIFICATION
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 Quarterly Report of Northern Technologies International  Corporation (the Company)
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending  November 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the  date hereof (the Report), I, Matthew C. Wolsfeld,
Chief Financial  Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
my knowledge and belief:

| | (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.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer and
principal accounting officer)




---

Lino Lakes,
MinnesotaJanuary 13, 2003
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO




SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)




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), the undersigned
officer of Target Acquisitions I, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"),
does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:




The
annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 (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 the information
contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:
      April 15, 2009/s/ Geoffrey AlisonGeoffrey
      AlisonPrincipal
      Executive Officer and PrincipalAccounting
      Officer




A
signed original
of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toTARGET
ACQUISITIONSI,
INC. and will be retained byTARGET
ACQUISITIONSI,
INC. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
----

| 1.   | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;                and |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of                Mediware. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  Dated:  February                5, 2008  | /s/                T. Kelly Mann                    |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                          |                                                     | T.                Kelly MannChief                Executive Officer  |
|                                                               |                                                     |  |
| Dated:  February                5, 2008        | /s/                Mark B.                Williams  |
|                                                          |                                                     | Mark                B. WilliamsChief                Financial Officer  |

----
EXHIBIT 12.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Suresh Venkatesan, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F/A of POET Technologies Inc.; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: March 12, 2018



By: /s/ Suresh Venkatesan

Suresh Venkatesan

Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 788 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      November 1, 2007.
    Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is hereby, elected to the 
following standing committees of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Armed Services: Ms. Tsongas (to rank immediately after Ms. 
Giffords).
    Committee on the Budget: Ms. Tsongas (to rank immediately after Mr. 
McGovern).
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 68270]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21831]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

[Docket Number USTR-2023-0007]


Cancellation of Public Hearing Concerning Russia's Implementation 
of Its World Trade Organization (WTO) Commitments

AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR).

ACTION: Notice; cancelation of public hearing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The interagency Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) sought 
public comments to assist USTR in the preparation of its annual report 
to Congress on Russia's implementation of its obligations as a Member 
of the World Trade Organization (WTO). USTR is cancelling the public 
hearing that was scheduled to take place on October 12, 2023.

DATES: The public hearing scheduled for October 12, 2023 is cancelled.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Silvia Savich, Deputy Assistant U.S. 
Trade Representative for Russia and Eurasia, at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4f1c262339262e611c2e39262c270f3a3c3b3d612a203f61282039"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="15467c79637c743b4674637c767d55606661673b707a653b727a63">[email protected]</span></a> or (202) 395-2256.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 8, 2023, the TPSC sought public 
comments to assist USTR in the preparation of its annual report to 
Congress on Russia's implementation of its obligations as a Member of 
the WTO. See 88 FR 53576 (Aug 8, 2023). The notice included a September 
20, 2023 deadline for the submission of written comments and requests 
to testify at a public hearing that was scheduled to take place on 
October 12, 2023. In response to the request for comments, USTR 
received two submissions. USTR also received one request to participate 
in the public hearing, which subsequently was withdrawn. Therefore, 
USTR is cancelling the October 12, 2023 public hearing.

Laura Buffo,
Chair of the Trade Policy Staff Committee, Office of the United States 
Trade Representative.
[FR Doc. 2023-21831 Filed 10-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3290-F3-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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 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 14 day of March, 2012.  /s/ Robert Kanaat Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer