alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: laurie_long@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:40:30 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,

Laurie Long

San Antonio, TX 78259
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 ON MOTION TO COMPEL - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

BARBARA MAY, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., a

foreign corporation, et al., 

Defendants. 

 CASE NO. C05-1957RSM

ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL

This matter is before the Court for consideration of plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to

discovery (Dkt. # 17). The Court finds that the moving party has failed to certify to a good faith effort

to resolve the matter as required, and denies the motion on that basis.

Rule 37 states, in relevant part, that a motion to compel “must include a certification that the

movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the party not making the disclosure in an

effort to secure the disclosure without court action.” F.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(2)(A) (emphasis added). The

companion local rule requires that such good faith conference must be either face-to-face or by telephone. 

Local Rule CR 37(a)(2)(A). 

The Court finds no such certification either within or attached to the motion to compel. 

Although the attached letters make passing reference to conversations between counsel, such reference

Case 2:05-cv-01957-RSM Document 33 Filed 09/18/2006 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 ON MOTION TO COMPEL - 2

does not constitute “certification” by counsel within the meaning of Rule 37. Further, it wholly fails to

sufficiently “detail the efforts to confer and explain why they proved fruitless.” Prescient Partners, L.P.

v. Fieldcrest Cannon, Inc., 1998 WL 67672 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); citing Tri-Star Pictures, Inc., v. Unger,

171 F.R.D. 94, 99 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). A proper certification, stated and signed by counsel, must 

“accurately and specifically convey to the court who, where, how, and when the respective parties

attempted to personally resolve the discovery dispute.” Shuffle Master, Inc., v. Progressive Games, Inc.,

170 F.R.D. 166, 170 (D. Nev. 1996). 

Absent such certification, the Court will not consider the motion. Accordingly, plaintiff’s 

motion to compel (Dkt. # 17) is DENIED. This denial is without prejudice to renewal of the motion as

an expedited motion under Local Rule CR 37(a)(2)(B). 

DATED this 18 day of September, 2006.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:05-cv-01957-RSM Document 33 Filed 09/18/2006 Page 2 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 - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

CELERINO CARRASCO,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CORRECTIONAL SERVICE

CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5104RJB

ORDER

 The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge J. Kelley

Arnold, objections to the report and recommendation, if any, and the remaining record, does hereby find

and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) Plaintiff’s complaint and causes of action are DISMISSED for lack of prosecution; 

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff and to the Hon. J. Kelley

Arnold.

DATED this 26th day of December, 2006.

ARobert J. Bryan

United States District Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-05104-RJB Document 13 Filed 12/26/06 Page 1 of 1
| (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 the Registrant. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:  April 15, 2011 |   | /s/ Michael B. Campbell                                        |
|----------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|                             |   | Michael B. Campbell, Chief Executive Officer                   |
|                             |   | (Principal Executive Officer)                                  |
|                             |   |                                                           |
| Date:  April 15, 2011  |   | /s/ Dean S. Skupen                                             |
|                             |   | Dean S. Skupen, Chief Financial Officer                        |
|                             |   | (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) |

| * | A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Resource Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Resource Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. |
|---|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
Exhibit 32.1  Chief Executive and Financial Officer Certification (Section 906)   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C.,SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002    Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, Steve Bergstrom, the undersigned Chief Executive and Financial Officer of Silver Hill Mines, Inc., (the Company), herby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.   Dated: March 27, 2009.  By:  /s/ Steve Bergstrom Steve Bergstrom Chief Executive Officer Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         21,563
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  84,242
<ALLOWANCES>                                   12,000
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               333,805
<PP&E>                                         316,967
<DEPRECIATION>                                 160,260
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,033,845
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,032,865
<BONDS>                                        3,725,790
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       12,304,606
<OTHER-SE>                                     (16,113,658)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,033,845
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               43,948
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  99,463
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               968,542
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             111,089
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,184,165)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,184,165)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,184,165)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.12)



</TABLE>
#### Gladys C. COOLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George TENET, Director, individually and in his capacity as Director (Retired) of the Central Intelligence Agency; John McLaughlin, individually, and in his capacity as Acting Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; Porter J. Goss, individually and in his official capacity as Nominated Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; Regan V. Daniels, individually and in his capacity as investigator, Central Intelligence Agency; Stanley M. Moskowitz, Director of Congressional Affairs, Central Intelligence Agency; Kathryn I. Dyer, Information and Privacy Coordinator, Central Intelligence Agency; Elizabeth York; Julie Lund, EEO Director, Central Intelligence Agency, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 05-1102, 05-1522.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

"Submitted July 11, 2005.

Decided Aug. 5, 2005.

Gladys C. Cooley, Appellant pro se. Paul Joseph McNulty, United States Attorney, Kevin Jason Mikolashek, Brian Eugene Bentley, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Gladys C. Cooley appeals the district court’s orders dismissing her Freedom of Information Act and employment discrimination claims. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Cooley v. Tenet,*No. CA-04-1052-1 (E.D. Va. Jan. 10, 2005; Mar. 16, 2005). 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.

*AFFIRMED*
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 18 Filed 04/11/2006 Page 1 of 1

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 18

Dockets.Justia.com
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SEC. 1350


(SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)





In connection with the Annual Report of, BookMerge Technologies Inc., (the "Company") on  Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard B. Carter, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Director of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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.





Dated: October 26, 2010





By: /s/ Richard B. Carter


Richard B. Carter


President, Chief Executive Officer,


Chief Financial Officer and Director
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

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION– 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

COLLEEN NUTTER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. C05-1910L

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

 RECONSIDERATION

On January 4, 2006, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s claims in the abovecaptioned matter on res judicata and statute of limitations grounds and restricted plaintiff’s

ability to file pro se complaints in this district. Plaintiff has filed a “Response to Order for

Dismissal” (Dkt. # 7), which the Court construes as a timely motion for reconsideration under

Local Civil Rule 7(h)(1). Such motions are disfavored in this district and will be granted only

upon a “showing of manifest error in the prior ruling” or “new facts or legal authority which

could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier without reasonable diligence.” 

Local Civil Rule 7(h)(1). Plaintiff has not met this burden. It does not matter why plaintiff

initially filed her suit in the District Court of Kansas: the adjudication of that suit on the merits

bars this and all future actions arising out of the same transactional nucleus of facts. In addition,

Case 2:05-cv-01910-RSL Document 8 Filed 01/23/06 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

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION– 2

plaintiff has not attempted to show that any of her claims are timely under the relevant statutes

of limitation. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is, therefore, DENIED. 

DATED this 23rd day of January, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01910-RSL Document 8 Filed 01/23/06 Page 2 of 2
No. P67/320.

#### H. H. Elder & Co. and J. E. Derenne, Ltd. *v.*United States, protest 62/15898 (Los Angeles).

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of sewing machine motors similar in all material respects to those the subject of *ACEC Electric Corp.*v. *United States*(55 Cust. Ct. 138, C.D. 2563), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Docket No: FAA - 2015 - 0494 Dir ID: 2014 - NM - 160 -AD
No. 63397.

protest 59/4181 (Boston).

#### Henry Schwab *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protest was dismissed.
No. 59252.

protest 211015-K (New York).

#### Regina Novelty Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Fobd, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silk scarves and squares similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Specialty House, Inc., Bryant & Heffernan, Inc., et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 136, C. A. D. 585), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: pgregory69@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:12:43 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,

Paula Gregory

Shreveport, LA 71106
Exhibit 31.2

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Jay Lutsky, Principal Financial Officer, certify that:

1.         I have reviewed this periodic report on Form 10-K/A of Xian Resources, Ltd.;

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.         I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) 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) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally  accepted accounting principles;

(c) 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; and

(d) 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.         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; and

(b) 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.
p.1 

OAR Box 1834 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

37)IV-E-10 

Docket Number: 

A-90-07 

Printed 11/10/2008 2:14:35 PM Sheet 37 of 61 
P.2 

^ t o ST4 

v2? 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

OCT 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Meeting with ChemLink on the Fuel Registration Program 

FROM: James W. Caldwell, ChiefjWi t J (W^U/^L 

Fuels Section (6406J) f 7 

TO: Air Docket No. A-90-07 

On September 29, 1992 Michael Lesh (our registration contractor), Joseph 

Fernandes, and I met with John Motier and Mike West of ChemLink. ChemLink 

produces hydrocarbon additives for reducing drag in pipelines. At this time, 

hydrocarbon-only additives are not required to be registered. However, based on the 

April 15, 1992 NPRM (57 FR 13168) they may ultimately be included. We discussed the 

background of the registration program and the mechanics of registration. ChemLink 

asked about the health-effects test requirements, and I referred them to the NPRM. 

cc: Carolyn Krueger 

i ED«-

• 

Printed on Recycled Paper
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 34

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

06/18

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 18 Jun 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.92 N 77.01 W Meters AGL
April 26, 1965

No. 69281.

#### Better Houseware Co. *v.*United States,

protest 64/18614.

Protest decided March 25, 1965.

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
Before the Third Division,

December 23, 1964

No. 68971.

#### Engis Equipment Company *v.*United States,

protests 61/11060-12168, etc. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of diamond files, not over *21⁄2*inches in length, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *J. E. Bernard & Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(52 Cust. Ct. 56, C.D. 2436), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.