alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: psalm23ruth@columbus.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:24:51 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,

Ruth Morgan

, 4340
EXHIBIT 32.1




CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In connection with the Annual Report of Sync2 Networks Corp, a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Warren Gilbert, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company does hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his knowledge:





(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 result of operations of the Company.






By:
/s/ Warren GilbertName:
Warren GilbertTitle:
President, Chief Executive Officer/Principal Financial OfficerDate:
March 7, 2014





[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sync2 Networks Corp and will be retained by Sync2 Networks Corp and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-04-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-23-1997
<CASH>                                          17,116
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   68,931
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,775
<INVENTORY>                                    121,416
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               216,670
<PP&E>                                         269,354
<DEPRECIATION>                                  81,969
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 438,214
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          134,184
<BONDS>                                         81,623
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           220
<OTHER-SE>                                     200,197
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   438,214
<SALES>                                        306,984
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               306,984
<CGS>                                          262,397
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  262,397
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                34,827
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,537
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,217
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,235
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,982
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,982
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.22
        

</TABLE>
PricewaterhouseCoopers
      LLP214
      N. Tryon StreetSte
      3600Charlotte
      NC 28202Telephone
      (704) 344 7500Facsimile
      (704) 344 4100






Report
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





To the
Board of Directors of Bank
of America, National Association:





We have
examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Assessment
Regarding Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria (the "Compliance
Statement"), that Bank of America, National Association (the "Company") complied
with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and
Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the asset-backed securities transactions
involving commercial mortgage loan transactions that involved an offer or sale
of asset-backed securities that were required to be registered on or after
January 1, 2006 with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Platform"), as of December 31, 2008 and for the
year then ended, excluding the criteria which the Company has determined are not
applicable to the servicing activities performed by them with respect to the
Platform as indicated in Appendix A of the Compliance Statement. Management is
responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our
examination.





Our
examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining,
on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected
asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of
selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether
the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected
activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures
were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by
the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not
designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred
prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or
amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this
report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our
opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's
compliance with the servicing criteria.




In our
opinion, management's assertion that Bank of America, National Association
complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and
for the year ended December 31, 2008 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all
material respects.
Before the First Division,

February 25, 1960

No. 63863.

petition 7159-R (Cleveland).

#### Stern Hat Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the facts and circumstances are the same as those involved in Abstract 50025, which record was incorporated herein, the petition was granted.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-21118 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DAVID SANTIAGO TAMEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H—01-CR-327-3

-------------------- November 5, 2002 Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel representing David Santiago Tamez has

move d for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Tamez was provided with a copy of counsel's Anders motion and brief, and he has filed a response to counsel's motion to withdraw.
Our independent review of the rec ord, counsel's brief, and

Tamez’s opposition shows that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, counsel's motion for leave to withdraw isNo. 01-21118 -2- GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2; F ED . R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(A).
From: I. Funk

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:55:09 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

I. Funk
Sun Valley, California
No. 63872.

protest 58/19557 (New York).

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

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the principles herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C.C.P.A. 112, C.A.D. 351) and that the quantities, reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty is not assessable upon the cartons of tomatoes, *365which were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protest was sustained to this extent.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 11.1


                               Computation of Earnings per Share


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    Three months ended                Six months ended
                                                 May 4,            May 3,         May 4,            May 3,
                                               ---------------------------       ---------------------------
                                                  1997             1998            1997              1998
                                               ----------       ----------       ----------       ----------
<S>                                            <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>       
Basic net earning per share:

   Weighted average common shares
    outstanding during the period               7,685,512        7,781,254        7,663,029        7,777,604
                                               ==========       ==========       ==========       ==========

   Net earnings for the period-unaudited       $2,462,186       $4,047,874       $4,376,315       $7,434,852
                                               ----------       ----------       ----------       ----------

   Basic net earnings per share                $      .32       $      .52       $      .57       $      .96
                                               ==========       ==========       ==========       ==========


Diluted net earnings per share:

   Weighted average common shares
   outstanding during the period                7,679,512        7,781,254        7,655,075        7,777,604

   Common stock equivalents                       102,681          303,450           92,562          275,282
                                               ----------       ----------       ----------       ----------

                                                7,782,193        8,084,704        7,747,637        8,052,886
                                               ==========       ==========       ==========       ==========

   Net earnings for the period-unaudited       $2,462,186       $4,047,874       $4,376,315       $7,434,852
                                               ==========       ==========       ==========       ==========

   Diluted net earnings per share              $      .32       $      .50       $      .56       $      .92
                                               ==========       ==========       ==========       ==========
</TABLE>
# Diario Oficial C 122A/16 d

| | ISSN 1977-0928 |
| --- | --- |
| Diario Oficial
  de la Unión Europea | C 122A |
| | |
| Edición en lengua española | Comunicaciones e informaciones | 58° año16 de abril de 2015 |

ISSN 1977-0928

Diario Oficial

de la Unión Europea

C 122A

Edición en lengua española

Comunicaciones e informaciones

58° año16 de abril de 2015

---

| Número de información | Sumario | Página |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Corrección de errores |
| 2015/C 122A/01 | Corrección de errores de la convocatoria de oposiciones generales — Administradores (AD 5/AD 7) especializados en investigación jurídica: EPSO/AD/295/15 — Juristas de formación jurídica búlgara (BG), EPSO/AD/296/15 — Juristas de formación jurídica alemana (DE), EPSO/AD/297/15 — Juristas de formación jurídica croata (HR), EPSO/AD/298/15 — Juristas de formación jurídica irlandesa (IE), EPSO/AD/299/15 — Juristas de formación jurídica lituana (LT), EPSO/AD/300/15 — Juristas de formación jurídica eslovaca (SK) — ( DO C 68 A de 26.2.2015 ) | 1 |

Número de información

Sumario

Página

Corrección de errores

2015/C 122A/01

Corrección de errores de la convocatoria de oposiciones generales — Administradores (AD 5/AD 7) especializados en investigación jurídica: EPSO/AD/295/15 — Juristas de formación jurídica búlgara (BG), EPSO/AD/296/15 — Juristas de formación jurídica alemana (DE), EPSO/AD/297/15 — Juristas de formación jurídica croata (HR), EPSO/AD/298/15 — Juristas de formación jurídica irlandesa (IE), EPSO/AD/299/15 — Juristas de formación jurídica lituana (LT), EPSO/AD/300/15 — Juristas de formación jurídica eslovaca (SK) — ( DO C 68 A de 26.2.2015 )

( DO C 68 A de 26.2.2015 )

1

---

| ES | |
| --- | --- |

ES

---

Corrección de errores

| 16.4.2015 | ES | Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea | CA 122/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2015

ES

Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea

CA 122/1

---

Corrección de errores de la convocatoria de oposiciones generales — Administradores (AD 5/AD 7) especializados en investigación jurídica: EPSO/AD/295/15 — Juristas de formación jurídica búlgara (BG), EPSO/AD/296/15 — Juristas de formación jurídica alemana (DE), EPSO/AD/297/15 — Juristas de formación jurídica croata (HR), EPSO/AD/298/15 — Juristas de formación jurídica irlandesa (IE), EPSO/AD/299/15 — Juristas de formación jurídica lituana (LT), EPSO/AD/300/15 — Juristas de formación jurídica eslovaca (SK)

(
  Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea C 68 A de 26 de febrero de 2015
  )

(2015/C 122 A/01)

En la página 2, título I, punto 3:

donde dice:

«Plazo (incluida la validación): 31 de marzo de 2015 a las 12.00 horas del mediodía, hora de Bruselas.»,

debe decir:

«Plazo (incluida la validación): 9 de abril de 2015 a las 12.00 horas del mediodía, hora de Bruselas.»

---
#### Diego NUNEZ VALLE; Rosa Maria Serrano Mendoza; Diego Alexis Nunez Serrano; Leshly Nathaly Nunez Serrano, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-73273.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*611Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 4, 2005.

Diego Nunez Valle, Santa Maria, CA, pro se.

Rosa Maria Serrano Mendoza, Santa Maria, CA, pro se.

Diego Alexis Nunez Serrano, Santa Maria, CA, pro se.

Leshly Nathaly Nunez Serrano, Santa Maria, CA, pro se.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration *&*Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Mark C. Walters, Esq., Jennifer L. Lightbody, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Lead petitioners Diego Nunez Valle and Rosa Maria Serrano Mendoza, husband and wife, and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of their motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft,*383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen because petitioners failed to comply with the procedural requirements of *Matter of Lozada,*19 I. *&*N. Dec. 637, 1988 WL 235454 (BIA 1988). *See Reyes v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 592, 598-99 (9th Cir.2004).

The BIA also acted within its discretion in denying the motion to reopen for failure to establish prejudice because petitioners contend only that the notary’s advice led to the institution of removal proceedings, not that his actions affected the fairness of the proceedings. *See Lara-Torres,*383 F.3d at 973-74 (“Removal proceedings do not become constitutionally unfair simply because they are precipitated in part by an attorney’s advice ... or because the illegal alien might believe that he could avoid detection until eligible for another form of relief.”)

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 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.

1

. The other two petitioners are lead petitioners' minor children and derivative beneficiaries of their applications for cancellation of removal.
IEA INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY

PHOTOVOLTAIC POWER SYSTEMS PROGRAMME

Snapshot Report 2014

Tables and Figures
IEA INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY

PHOTOVOLTAIC POWER SYSTEMS PROGRAMME

Figure 1
IEA INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY

PHOTOVOLTAIC POWER SYSTEMS PROGRAMME

Figure 2
IEA INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY

PHOTOVOLTAIC POWER SYSTEMS PROGRAMME

Figure 3
IEA INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY

PHOTOVOLTAIC POWER SYSTEMS PROGRAMME

Figure 4
IEA INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY

PHOTOVOLTAIC POWER SYSTEMS PROGRAMME

Table 1: Evolution of Top 10 Markets

Installations -GW Total Installed Capacity -GW

1

CHINA 11.3 GERMANY 35.5

2

JAPAN** 6.9 CHINA 18.3

3

USA 4.8 ITALY 17.6

4

GERMANY 3.3 JAPAN** 13.6

5

ITALY 1.5 USA 12.0

6

INDIA* 1.1 SPAIN** 5.6

7

ROMANIA* 1.1 FRANCE 4.6

8

GREECE* 1.0 AUSTRALIA 3.3

9

UK 1.0 BELGIUM 3.0

10 AUSTRALIA 0.9 UK 2.9
IEA INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY

PHOTOVOLTAIC POWER SYSTEMS PROGRAMME

Table 2

PV MARKET DATA END 2013 - MW

Cumulative 

Capacity 

Newly 

Added 

Capacity 

Cumulative 

Capacity 

Newly Added 

Capacity 

AUSTRALIA 3,255 848 SPAIN** 5,566 152

AUSTRIA 580 220 SWEDEN 43 19

BELGIUM 2,983 215 SWITZERLAND 740 300

CANADA 1,210 444 THAILAND 704 317

CHINA 18,300 11,300 TURKEY 15 6

DENMARK 532 153 UK 2,900 1,000

FRANCE 4,632 613 USA 12,022 4,751

GERMANY 35,500 3,304

ISRAEL 420 183 BULGARIA* 1,020 10

ITALY 17,600 1,461 CZECH 

REPUBLIC*

2,162 88

JAPAN** 13,643 6,900 GREECE* 2,579 1,043

KOREA 1,467 442 INDIA* 2,319 1,115

MALAYSIA 73 42 ROMANIA* 1,100 1,150

MEXICO 100 45 SLOVAKIA* 524 0

NETHERLANDS 650 320 TAIWAN* 376 170

NORWAY 11 0,6 UKRAINE* 616 290

PORTUGAL 284 60
IEA INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY

PHOTOVOLTAIC POWER SYSTEMS PROGRAMME

Warsaw, 16 Oct 2013

www.iea-pvps.org
★

H. Res. 788 

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.