alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: michalak715@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:57:59 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,

Rebecca Michalak

Harleysville, PA 19438
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

Directorate Identifier: 2013

- NM

- 084

- AD

**Costs:** Labor per airplane ( 20 work hours x $8 5 /hour) $ 1,700 Parts per airplane $ + n/a Cost per airplane $ 1,700 Number of U.S.

- registered airplanes x 5 Total fleet co st $ 8,500

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case r

United States District Court

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

 HARRY VERN FOX

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

 HENRY RICHARDS, et al.,

CASE NUMBER: C06-503RBL

 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.

 XX Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been

tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

 THE COURT HAS ORDERED THAT

Costs are taxed in the amount of $43.88 in favor of defendants/appellees and against

plaintiff/appellant.

 January 13, 2010 BRUCE RIFKIN 

Date Clerk

 s/CM Gonzalez 

Deputy Clerk
#### Valdet Teplani, Appellant-Respondent, v Joma Holdings, Inc., et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents-Appellants. Ramadani Roofing Co., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent, et al., Third-Party Defendant.

[631 NYS2d 777]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.), dated October 27, 1993, as denied his motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and the defendants third-party plaintiffs Joma Holdings, Inc. and P.S. Seven Housing Associates cross-appeal and the defendant second third-party plaintiff Celebrity Construction Corp. separately cross-appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the order as denied their respective cross motions for partial summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s cause of action under Labor Law § 240 (1) and for summary judgment on the issue of common law indemnity against the first and second third-party defendant Ramadani Roofing Co.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to Ramadani Roofing Co. payable by the cross-appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court properly found that issues of fact preclude the granting of the parties’ respective motions and cross motion for summary judgment on the cause of action under Labor Law § 240 (1) *(see, Richardson v Matarese,*206 AD2d 353; *Styer v Vita Constr.,*174 AD2d 662; *Mack v Altman Stage Light. Co.,*98 AD2d 468). The court also properly denied the cross-appellants’ respective cross motions on the issue of indemnification against the plaintiff’s employer, as there are questions of fact as to which parties shared responsibility for this accident *(see, Chapel v Mitchel,*84 NY2d 345; *Kelly v Diesel Constr. Div.,*35 NY2d 1; *Edholm v Smithtown DiCanio Org.,*217 AD2d 569). O’Brien, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.
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

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

RICHARD ROY SCOTT,

 Plaintiff,

v.

WILL BAILEY,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5173RBL

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon plaintiff’s “appeal” [Dkt. #62] of

Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold’s Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Conduct Non Stenographic

Depositions, Ordering the Plaintiff to Comply with the Courts Orders to File an Amended Complaint, Directing

the Clerk to Remove all Defendants Except Will Bailey from this Action and Staying the Action [Dkt. #59].

Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, the Court rules as follows:

This case has been referred to the Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636. Under Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(a), the non-dispositive order of a magistrate judge to whom a matter has been referred for pretrial matters

may be reviewed by the district court upon the objection of a party. The court construes Mr. Scott’s “appeal”

in this instance to be such an objection.

This Court previously granted plaintiff leave to amend his complaint; however, the Court ordered that

the amended complaint contain no new parties. Plaintiff has filed a proposed amended complaint which names

three new parties. Magistrate Judge Arnold correctly concluded that the amended complaint would not be

Case 3:06-cv-05173-RBL Document 63 Filed 11/28/06 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

27

28

 ORDER

Page - 2

considered, that plaintiff’s motion for non stenographic depositions be denied, that discovery be stayed pending

plaintiff’s decision whether or not to comply with the Court’s orders, and striking the improperly named

defendants. It is therefore

ORDERED that plaintiff’s “appeal” [Dkt. #62] is DENIED.

Plaintiff also seeks to recuse Magistrate Judge Arnold. This Court will not rule on the request to recuse

until Magistrate Judge Arnold has the opportunity to review it. 

The Clerk shall send uncertified copies of this order to all counsel of record, and to any party appearing

pro se.

Dated this 28th day of November, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05173-RBL Document 63 Filed 11/28/06 Page 2 of 2
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 this Form 10-K/A periodic
report ofRecon Technology, Ltd for the year ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, I, Liu Jia, certify that:



(1) This period report containing the financial statements 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
this period report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofRecon
Technology, Ltd.



Date: February 8, 2012



| | /s/ Liu Jia                                                          
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Liu Jia
        Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit 32.1





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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of FusionTech, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Lixin Wang, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 (15 U.S.C. §78m or §78o(d)); and





(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: March 22, 2011
By:
/s/ Lixin WangLixin Wang

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)





This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA OP 21-0526
GEORGE C. WELLS,

Petitioner,

v. JIM SALMONSEN,

Respondent. 

# FILED

NOV 0 9 2021 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of tvlontana ORDER

George C. Wells has petitioned for habeas corpus relief, arguing that, pursuant to State v. Brendal,2009 MT 236,¶40,351 Mont. 395,213P.3d 448,he should be sentenced
as a persistent felony offender (PFO) because it is mandatory. He claims that "this Court isbarred by resjudicata and must reinstate the original legal 50 year PFO sentence which became 'law ofthe case' on February 18, 1982, and final with his conviction." We have previously addressed Wells' sentencing issues when he sought habeas relief, explaining as follows:

In 1982, Wells was sentenced for multiple felonies and as a persistent felony offender (PFO), receivingatotal sentence of 150 years. He appealed, and we affirmed. State v. Wells, 202 Mont. 337, 658 P.2d 381 (1983). In 2015,he petitioned for habeascorpus,assertingthathis sentence was facially invalid because his PFO sentence was imposed in addition to the sentences forhisotheroffenses,aswell aspresentingotherclaims. Wepartially granted Wells' petition and remanded his case for resentencing. Wells v. Kirkegard, 381 Mont. 545, 357 P.3d 337 (Table). On April 20, 2016,the District Court resentenced Wells for his felony convictions, and did not sentence him as a PFO, resulting in a 100-year sentence. Wells did not appeal from his new sentence. Wells v. Fletcher, No. OP 17-0224, 388 Mont. 555, 397 P.3d 457 (May 9, 2017). Because, as noted above, Wells did not appeal from his new sentence, he is precluded from seeking habeas relief. Section 46-22-101(2), MCA ("The writ ofhabeas 11/09/2021

Case Number: OP 21-0526corpus is not available to attack the validity ofthe conviction or sentence ofa person ofa

person who has been adjudged guilty ofan offense in a court ofrecord and has exhausted the remedy ofappeal."). And, in any event, Wells is mistaken in his arguments. Brendal does not apply to Wells because the law governing PFO sentencing has changed since 2009. Wells' 1982 sentence as a PFO was illegal when, in 2010, we determined the PFO sentence replaces the sentence for the underlying felony. State v. Gunderson, 2010 MT 166,¶54, 357 Mont. 142, 237P.3d 74 (Gunderson II). Because ofthis Court's remand in 2015 to the District Court, Wells' overall sentence has since been corrected. It is not mandatory that Wells receive a PFO sentence when he received sentences for his other felonies because a PFO "designation is not itself a separate crime carrying a separate sentence[1" Gunderson II, ¶ 53 (citing State v. DeWitt, 2006 MT 302, ¶ 11, 334 Mont. 474, 149 P.3d 549). Wells nowhas sentences for his felony convictions and not asa PFO. We note that Wells' new sentence is for 100 years, instead ofthe 150-year sentence that
was determined to be illegal. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Wells' Petition for Habeas Relief is DENIED and DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy ofthis Order to counsel of record and to George C. Wells personally.

't DATED this d day ofNovember, 2021.

2 ChiefJustice

# —1 Justi L-.—‘ s

3
Exhibit 32


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


I, Scott Emerson Lybbert, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report of TGFIN Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter
ended June 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of TGFIN Holdings, Inc.


                           By:  /s/ Scott Emerson Lybbert
                           Name: Scott Emerson Lybbert
                           Title: Chief Executive Officer





I, Scott Emerson Lybbert, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report of TGFIN Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter
ended June 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of TGFIN Holdings, Inc.


                           By: /s/ Scott Emerson Lybbert
                           Name: Scott Emerson Lybbert
                           Title: Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           4,886
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                16,100
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     11,898
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          18,451
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            18,619
<LOANS>                                         45,796
<ALLOWANCE>                                        372
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  89,752
<DEPOSITS>                                      81,174
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                661
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,992
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,925
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  89,752
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,693
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  890
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   507
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 5,090
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,806
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,284
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       60
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,639
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    905
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         226
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       226
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.66
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.46
<LOANS-NON>                                         45
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   401
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      111
<RECOVERIES>                                        22
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  372
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               372
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > To Provide for an Audit of the Federal Reserve System by the General Accounting Office

              																	United States. Congress. House. Committee on Banking and Currency, 1865-1974					 and 	Ninety-Third Congress, 1973-1975. 						*To Provide for an Audit of the Federal Reserve System by the General Accounting Office : Hearings Before the Committee on Banking and Currency, House of Representatives, Ninety-Third Congress, First Session, on H.R. 10265, October 2 and 3, 1973*,												Washington: 								U.S. Government Printing Office, 										October 2 and 3, 1973,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/756,			accessed on September 23, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
No. 68944.

#### Polks Model Craft Hobbies, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 63/7859(B), etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, O.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of HO gauge locomotives similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Polk’s Model Craft Hobbies, Inc., et al.*(47 CCPA 137, C.A.D. 746), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 PaperWorks, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the period ending August 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Rhoda Rizkalla, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss.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 result of operations of
          the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
21st day of October, 2010.


/s/ Rhoda Rizkalla
----------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer