alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Mary Bochek

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:42:32 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,

Mary Bochek
Apple Valley, Minnesota
Case 3:05-cv-05575-RBL Document 63 Filed 12/29/06 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:05-cv-05575-RBL Document 63 Filed 12/29/06 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:05-cv-05575-RBL Document 63 Filed 12/29/06 Page 3 of 3
No. P67/354.

#### Seaway Importing Co. and Saunders *v.*United States, protest 66/26306 (New York).

Beckworth, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of rain-wear similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Weather-Rite Sportswear Co., Inc.*(52 CCPA 7, C.A.D. 848), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Docket No. FAA-2012-1032
H. Res. 721 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

October 22, 2007. 

Whereas Mendez v. Westminster was a 1947 Federal court 

case that challenged racial segregation in California 

schools; 

Whereas in its ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Ninth Circuit, in an en banc decision, held that the 

segregation of Mexican and Mexican American students 

into separate ‘‘Mexican schools’’ was unconstitutional; 

Whereas on March 2, 1945, a group of Mexican-American fathers (Thomas Estrada, William Guzman, Frank Palomino, and Lorenzo Ramirez), led by Gonzalo Mendez on 

behalf of his daughter Sylvia, challenged the practice of 

school segregation in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles; 

Whereas the fathers claimed that their children, along with 

5,000 other children of ‘‘Mexican and Latin descent’’, 

were victims of unconstitutional discrimination by being 

forced to attend separate ‘‘Mexican’’ schools in the Westminster, Garden Grove, Santa Ana, and El Modena 

school districts of Orange County; 

Whereas Judge Paul J. McCormick ruled in favor of Mendez 

and his co-plaintiffs on February 18, 1946; 
2 

•HRES 721 EH 

Whereas the Westminster school district appealed the decision of the district court; 

Whereas when the district appealed Judge McCormick’s decision, several organizations joined the appellate case as 

amicus curiae, including the NAACP, represented by 

Thurgood Marshall; 

Whereas more than a year later, on April 14, 1947, the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the district 

court’s ruling; 

Whereas the Ninth Circuit ruled only on the narrow grounds 

that, although California law provided for segregation of 

students, it only did so for ‘‘children of Chinese, Japanese or Mongolian parentage’’ and did not provide for 

‘‘the segregation of school children because of their Mexican blood,’’, therefore it was unlawful to segregate the 

Mexican children; 

Whereas later in 1947, California Governor and future Chief 

Justice of the United States Earl Warren signed into law 

a repeal of the last remaining school segregation statutes 

in the California Education Code and thus ended ‘‘separate but equal’’ in California schools and with it school 

segregation; 

Whereas seven years later, Brown v. Board of Education held 

‘‘separate but equal’’ schools to be unconstitutional, ending school segregation throughout the United States; and 

Whereas on April 14, 2007, the Mendez family celebrated the 

60th anniversary of the Mendez v. Westminster decision: 

Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, that the House of Representatives— 
3 

•HRES 721 EH 

(1) recognizes the 60th anniversary of the Mendez 

v. Westminster decision which ended segregation of 

Mexican and Mexican American students in California 

schools; 

(2) honors the Mendez family and congratulates 

Sylvia Mendez for her continued efforts to keep alive the 

importance of this case and the impact it had on her future; and 

(3) encourages the continued fight against school 

segregation and the education of the people of the 

United States of the civil right implications of the 

Mendez v. Westminster case. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
No. 57765.

protest 211766-K (New York).

#### John Heathcoat & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of nets or nettings made on a bobbinet machine, wholly or in chief value of nylon, which nylon is similar in all material respects *372to that the classification of which was involved in *Holeproof Hosiery Co.*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 176, C. D. 1366), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
AMENDMENT
NO. 4 TO


EARLY
ACCESS AGREEMENT


 


This
fourth Amendment to the Early Access Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated 20th May 2016, by and between
Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. (“HEMISPHERX”), and Impatients N.V. (“IMPATIENTS”), who are each
a “Party” and together the “Parties” to the Agreement, is entered into as of 26 March 2018
(the “Amendment No. 4 Effective Date”).


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS,
HEMISPHERX and IMPATIENTS are Parties to the Agreement for HEMISPHERX’S Product, Ampligen (rintatolimod);


 


WHEREAS,
the Agreement has been amended on 13 December 2016, 28 June 2017 and 14 February 2018;


 


WHEREAS,
the Parties wish to further amend the Agreement to establish that the Field for Canada shall not be limited to Pancreatic Cancer,
as set forth below;


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree as follows:


 


Definitions
and References. Except as set forth herein, capitalized terms not otherwise defined or amended in the Amendment shall have
the meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement. References to Articles or Sections are the same with all of their subparts as they
appear in the Agreement.


 


	1.	Amendment
    to the Agreement: Effective as of the Amendment No. 4 Effective Date, the Agreement shall be amended as follows:


 


	 	1.1.	The
    definition of Territory in Clause 1.10 of the Agreement shall be amended to read:
	 	 	 
	 	 	“Field”
    means treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome and/or the treatment of pancreatic cancer. 
	 	 	 
	 	1.2.	The
    definition of Territory in Clause 1.31 of the Agreement shall be amended to read:
	 	 	 
	 	 	“Territory”
    means all countries of the European Union, The United Kingdom following a Brexit, Turkey and Canada.


 


	2.	Effect
    of the Amendment. From and after the Amendment No. 4 Effective Date, all references to the Agreement shall mean the Agreement
    as amended by this Amendment. Except as expressly amended by the Amendment, all of the provisions of the original Early Access
    Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


 




    	 	1	 



     


    

 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the respective Parties hereto have duly executed this Amendment as of the Amendment No. 4 Effective Date
above. The persons executing this Amendment represent and warrant that they have the full power and authority to enter into this
Amendment on behalf of the persons or entities for whom they are signing.


 


	HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA, INC.	 
	a Delaware corporation	 
	 	 
	By:	/s/ Thomas
    K. Equels	 
	Title:
	Chairman
        & CEO

        
	 


 


	IMPATIENTS N.V.	 
	a Dutch limited liability company	 
	 	 
	By:	/s/ Ronald
    Brus, MD	 
	Title:	CEO	 


 




    	 	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

PAGE – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

BELAYNEH E. MOLLA,

Petitioner,

v.

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, et al.,

Respondents.

CASE NO. C06-396-MJP-JPD

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY

OF DEPORTATION AND REMOVAL

The Court, having reviewed petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition and emergency motion

for stay of deportation and removal (Dkt. #1), all papers and exhibits in support of that petition,

the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable James P. Donohue, United States Magistrate

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

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation.

(2) Petitioner’s motion for stay is DENIED;

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the petitioner and to Judge

Donohue.

DATED this 3rd day of April, 2006.

A

Marsha J. Pechman

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00396-MJP Document 3 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 1 of 1

Molla v. Gonzales et al Doc. 3

Dockets.Justia.com
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax
Credit Fund III, L.P.  (the  "Partnership")  for the period ended  September 30,
2009 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof
(the "Report"),  and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section  906  of  the   Sarbanes-Oxley   Act  of  2002,   I,  Melanie  R.  Wenk,
Vice-President  and Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates,  Inc.,  general
partner of the Partnership, hereby certify 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  result  of  operations  of  the
     Partnership.




/s/Melanie R. Wenk
------------------
Melanie R. Wenk
Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.

November 9, 2009
No. 53304.

protest 140989-K (New York).

#### Pan American Import-Export Co. *v.*United States,

*113Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of sisal handbags similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Goldberg & Seltzer, Inc.*(36 C. C. P. A. 64, C. A. D. 399), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# Official Journal C 142/5 Ma

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 142 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 605 May 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 142

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 605 May 2017

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 142/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2017/C 142/02 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  2
  ) | 5 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2017/C 142/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  )

1

1

2017/C 142/02

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  2
  )

2

5

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 142/03 | State aid — United Kingdom — State aid No SA.47702(2017/C)(ex 2017/N) — Alternative package to replace the commitment for the Royal Bank of Scotland to divest the Rainbow business — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) TFEU (
  1
  ) | 8 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2017/C 142/03

State aid — United Kingdom — State aid No SA.47702(2017/C)(ex 2017/N) — Alternative package to replace the commitment for the Royal Bank of Scotland to divest the Rainbow business — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) TFEU (
  1
  )

1

8

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |
| | (2)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

(2)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty.

2

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
No. 60577.

Suit 4872.

#### A. F. Burstrom *v.*United States.

C.D. 1752 affirmed November 30, 1956. C. A. D. 631.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET AS OF MARCH 31, 2000 AND THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS
ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       2,622,272
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  391,162
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    885,744
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,998,500
<PP&E>                                         660,920
<DEPRECIATION>                                 203,541
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,534,560
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,167,659
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           12,320
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,180,005
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,534,560
<SALES>                                        624,642
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               624,642
<CGS>                                          574,758
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,779,837
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (12,023)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,717,930)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,719,530)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,719,530)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.22)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1

                              CERTIFICATIONS

I, Jerod C. Edington, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Hydrodynex, 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 small
business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this Report;

4. The small business issuer'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)) and internal control
over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 31a-15(f) and
15(d)-15(f)) for the small business issuer and we 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 small business issuer,
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 small business issuer'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

c) Disclosed in this Report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):

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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: September 28, 2008

/s/ Jerod C. Edington
---------------------
Jerod C. Edington
President and Chief Executive Officer



<PAGE>
PLATT & BUESCHER 

PROPOSED ORDER DENYING MOTION Attorneys at Law 

TO CONTINUE TRIAL/ROSENAU-1 P.O. Box 727 

No. CR06-157MJP Coupeville, WA 98239 

 Phone: (360) 678-6777 

1 The Honorable Marsha J. Pechman

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

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT SEATTLE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

HENRY ROSENAU 

 Defendant. 

No. CR06-157MJP 

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING 

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL 

 This matter having come on before the undersigned Court on motion of the government 

for a continuance of the trial date, 

 Having considered the files and records herein, the Government’s Motion and the 

Defendant’s Response, and the facts contained therein, and Title 18 United States Code §3161, 

 Now, therefore, the Court DENIES, the Government’s Emergency Motion for a 

Continuance of the Trial Date and further ORDERS that the trial remain scheduled for 

November 7, 2011. 

 Dated this _______ day of ________________, 2011. 

 

 ______________________________ 

 MARSHA J. PECHMAN 

 Chief Judge, United States District Court 

 Fax: (360) 678-0323 

 

 

Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 57-1 Filed 11/01/11 Page 1 of 2
 PLATT & BUESCHER 

PROPOSED ORDER DENYING MOTION Attorneys at Law 

TO CONTINUE TRIAL/ROSENAU-2 P.O. Box 727 

No. CR06-157MJP Coupeville, WA 98239 

 Phone: (360) 678-6777 

 Fax: (360) 678-0323 

 

 

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

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 57-1 Filed 11/01/11 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

DETENTION ORDER

PAGE -1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

 AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, ) CASE NO. 05-518M

)

v. )

)

DANIEL GARRIS, ) BOND REVOCATION AND 

) DETENTION ORDER 

)

Defendant. )

)

_____________________________ )

The Court conducted a Bond Violation hearing on March 6, 2006. The defendant

is charged with violating a special condition of his bond by failing to attend and successfully

complete inpatient treatment at Pioneer Center North. The defendant admitted to the charges

and the bond was revoked.

It is therefore ORDERED:

(1) Defendant shall be detained pending trial and committed to the custody of

the Attorney General for confinement in a correctional facility separate, to

the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences, or being

held in custody pending appeal;

(2) Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation

with counsel;

Case 2:06-cr-00096-JCC Document 26 Filed 03/07/06 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

DETENTION ORDER

PAGE -2-

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the

Government, the person in charge of the correctional facility in which

Defendant is confined shall deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal

for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding; and

 (4) The clerk shall direct copies of this order to counsel for the United States,

to counsel for the defendant, to the United States Marshal, and to the United

States Pretrial Services Officer.

DATED this 7th day of March, 2006.

AMONICA J. BENTON

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00096-JCC Document 26 Filed 03/07/06 Page 2 of 2