alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: yobo411@earthlink.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:23:23 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,

Mary Young

Gentry, AR 72734
III

Calendar No. 372

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 172

Congratulating President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga and the people of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka on the celebration

of 50 years of independence.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 3, 1998

Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself and Mr. ROBB) submitted the following

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

MAY 19, 1998

Reported by Mr. HELMS, without amendment

RESOLUTION

Congratulating President Chandrika Bandaranaike

Kumaratunga and the people of the Democratic Socialist

Republic of Sri Lanka on the celebration of 50 years

of independence.

Whereas February 4, 1998, is the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the independence of the Democratic Socialist

Republic of Sri Lanka from Britain;

Whereas the present constitution of the Democratic Socialist

Republic of Sri Lanka has been in existence since August

16, 1978, and guarantees universal suffrage; and
2

SRES 172 RS

Whereas the people of the Democratic Socialist Republic of

Sri Lanka and the United States share many values, including a common belief in democratic principles, a commitment to international cooperation, and promotion of

enhanced trade and cultural ties: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate—

2 (1) congratulates President Chandrika

3 Bandaranaike Kumaratunga and the people of the

4 Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka on the

5 celebration of 50 years of independence;

6 (2) expresses best wishes to the Government

7 and people of the Democratic Socialist Republic of

8 Sri Lanka as they celebrate their national day of

9 independence on February 4, 1998; and

10 (3) looks forward to continued cooperation and

11 friendship with the Government and people of the

12 Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka in the

13 years ahead.

14 SEC. 2. TRANSMITTAL OF RESOLUTION.

15 The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit an en16 rolled copy of this resolution to the Government of the

17 Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

Æ

Calendar No. 372

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 172

RESOLUTION

Congratulating President Chandrika Bandaranaike

tion of 50 years of independence.Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka on the celebraKumaratunga and the people of the Democratic

MAY 19, 1998

Reported without amendment
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 OF DISMISSAL 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

 

AT&T CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

HOMESTEAD MORTGAGE, INC., et al.,

Defendant.

NO. C06-461JLR

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The court having been notified of the settlement of this matter and it appearing that no

issue remains for the court’s determination,

IT IS ORDERED that this action and all claims asserted herein are DISMISSED with

prejudice and without costs to any party.

In the event settlement is not perfected, any party may move to reopen the case,

provided such motion is filed within 60 days of the date of this order. Any trial date and

pretrial dates previously set are hereby VACATED. 

DATED this 19th day of June, 2006.

A 

JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00461-JLR Document 6 Filed 06/19/06 Page 1 of 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-KSB ("Form 10-KSB") of Maneki Mining Inc. (the "Company") for the annual period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with  the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Patricia Hutchins, Chief Executive  Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

The Form 10-KSB fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
- The information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.			   
				                                                                                              /s/ Patricia Hutchins                                                                                                                                       Patricia Hutchins				                                                                                              Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer				                                                                                              July 10, 2006
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 301 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 301

                  A resolution relative to rule XXXIX.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             October 15 (legislative day, October 2), 1998

 Mr. Lott submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
                  A resolution relative to rule XXXIX.

    Resolved, That if a Member who is precluded from foreign travel by 
the provisions of rule 39 is appointed as a delegate to an official 
conference to be attended by Members of the Senate, then the 
appointment of that individual shall constitute an authorization by the 
Senate and the individual will not be deemed in violation of rule 39.
    Sec. 2. This resolution shall be applicable only until November 21, 
1998.
                                 <all>
```
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

RICHARD A. HOOPES,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

CASE NO. C06-5316KLS

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. #1 and #3) is GRANTED. Plaintiff does

not appear to have funds available to afford the $350.00 filing fee.

The clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to counsel of record and to issue the Summonses.

DATED this 1st day of August, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05316-RJB Document 4 Filed 08/01/06 Page 1 of 1
# Official Journal C 43I/2022

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 043I |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6528 January 2022 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 043I

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6528 January 2022

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2022/C 43 I/01 | Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products on 28 January 2022
  (Published pursuant to Article 13 or 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council) | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2022/C 43 I/01

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products on 28 January 2022
  (Published pursuant to Article 13 or 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

(Published pursuant to Article 13 or 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council

1

---

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

EN
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             307
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,166
<ALLOWANCES>                                       493
<INVENTORY>                                      1,785
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,812
<PP&E>                                          16,279
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,473
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  21,891
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,043
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,996
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    21,891
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,061
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,170
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    48
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 184
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (645)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (645)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.11)
        

</TABLE>
September 18, 1958

No. 62343.

Suit 4940.

#### Morris Friedman *v.*United States.

C. D. 1907 affirmed May 23, 1958. C. A. D. 680.
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

______________________________) 

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) NO. CR06-255 JLR

)

)

vs. ) MINUTE ORDER

)

ABDIGAFAR HASSAN )

)

)

______________________________)

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the

Court, the Honorable James L. Robart, U.S. District

Judge:

This matter comes before the court upon defendants’

motion to compel discovery of shipping records (Dkt

225). The motion seeks relief regarding two groups of

documents.

The Government represents that it has produced all

documents in the first group by the deadline requested

in defendants’ proposed order. As such, this portion of

the motion is DENIED as moot.

The second group of documents is referred to as DEA

Exhibit N-14. The Government represents it has located

the exhibit and is producing it. As such, this portion

of the motion is also DENIED as moot.

The court has given Defendants leave to file a motion

for further relief, including exclusion of DEA Exhibit

N-14 at trial, if they feel they can establish

prejudice.

Nothing in the court’s ruling should be taken as

endorsing the Government’s performance of its discovery

obligations. 

Case 2:06-cr-00255-JLR Document 263 Filed 03/09/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Filed and entered this 9th day of March, 2007.

BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk

\s\ C. Condon

By ____________________

 Casey Condon

 Deputy Clerk

Case 2:06-cr-00255-JLR Document 263 Filed 03/09/07 Page 2 of 2
FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT APRIL 15, 2002 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-15275 Non-Argument Calendar

D. C. Docket No. 01-00286-CR-DMM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ANTONIO ARBELO, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Miami (April 15, 2002)
Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and HULL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:1 In addition to this legal issue, th e court was presented with two subsidiary factual issues, both of which it resolv ed in appellant’s favor: (1) whether appellant’s father had become a naturali zed American citizen on June 9, 1980, and (2) whether appellant had resided with, a nd was in the legal custody of, his father from 1982 to 1984. In that we resolve the legal issue in the government’s favor, we do not address these issues of fact. 2 Appellant was indicted, and adjudged guilty following a bench trial, for being found in the United States after having been removed from the country in 1998, as a result of a conviction for an a ggravated felony, without having obtained the express consent of the Attorney Genera l for re-entry in violation of § 1326. At trial, the court was presented with one legal issue: whether the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 (the “Act”), 8 U.S.C. § 1431, which became effective on February 27, 2001, operated retroactively to make a ppellant (a native of Guatemala born in 1968) a “citizen” as a matter of law before he was “found” in Miami-Dade county in March 2001. 1 Appellant contended that if the Act were applied retroactively, the court was required to dismiss his indictment. The court resolved this issue in favor of the government. The Act amended and repealed prior provisions of Title 8 of the United States Code relating to the automatic acquisition of citizenship by children of American citizens. See 8 U.S.C. § 1431; Nehme v. INS , 252 F.3d 415, 430-32 & nn. 19, 20 (5th Cir. 2001). Under the Act, “a minor child who is a lawful3 permanent resident [of the United States] would automatically be naturalized when either one of his parents becomes a United St ates citizen . . . as long as the child is in the legal custody of the citizen parent.” Nehme , 252 F.3d at 430-31. The Act specified that its amendments to prior la w “shall take effect 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to individuals who satisfy the requirements [set forth above] as in effect on such effective date.” The Act § 104; Nehme , 252 F.3d at 431. The Act’s effec tive date was February 27, 2001. Appellant acknowledges, as he did in th e district court, that the decisions interpreting and applying the Act have squarely rejected his argument for retroactivity. See Hughes v. Ashcroft , 255 F.3d 752, 758-60 (9th Cir. 2001); Nehme , supra ; and In Re Jesus Enrique Rodriguez-Tejedor , 23 I. & N. Dec. 153, interim dec. 3454 (BIA July 24, 2001) (en banc )). We are persuaded that those decisions are correct, and therefore hold that , in the Eleventh Circuit, the Act is not to be applied retroactively. AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 6



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Baja Mining Corp. (the Company) on Form 40-F for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John W. Greenslade, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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; and

(2)

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



March 30, 2007

/s/ John W. Greenslade

John W. Greenslade

Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Baja Mining Corporation and will be retained by Baja Mining Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 55677.

protests 41255-K, etc. (Minneapolis).

#### The Dayton Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

CASE NO. C05-2121 JCC 

- 1 - 

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT SEATTLE 

LEE FAMILY INVESTMENTS, by and through 

its Trustee W.B. LEE, Derivatively and on behalf 

of Nominal Defendant WASHINGTON 

MUTUAL, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

KERRY K. KILLINGER, THOMAS W. CASEY, 

DEANNA W. OPPENHEIMER, ANNE V. 

FARRELL, STEPHEN E. FRANK, PHILLIP D. 

MATTHEWS, MICHAEL K. MURPHY, 

MARGARET OSMER MCQUADE, MARY E. 

PUGH, WILLIAM G. REED, JR., JAMES H. 

STEVER, WILLIS B. WOOD, JR., 

Defendants, 

And 

WASHINGTON MUTUAL, INC., 

Nominal Defendant. 

Case No. C05-2121-JCC 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE 

ORDER 

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation (Dkt. No. 47), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

The above-captioned litigation is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all parties 

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, without fees or costs to any party. 

 

Case 2:05-cv-02121-JCC Document 48 Filed 11/19/09 Page 1 of 2
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

CASE NO. C05-2121 JCC - 2 -

DATED this 19th day of November 2009. 

A

John C. Coughenour 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:05-cv-02121-JCC Document 48 Filed 11/19/09 Page 2 of 2
IV

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 108

Expressing the sense of the Congress that a commemorative postage stamp

should be issued to raise public awareness of the serious problem of

driving while intoxicated.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 17, 1999

Mr. FORBES submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on Government Reform

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that a commemorative

postage stamp should be issued to raise public awareness

of the serious problem of driving while intoxicated.

Whereas 3 in every 5 Americans will be involved in an alcohol-related car crash at some time in their lives, and 8

young people a day die in alcohol-related crashes;

Whereas, in the past decade, 4 times as many Americans died

in drunk driving car crashes as were killed in the Vietnam era;

Whereas the economic costs of alcohol-related crashes are estimated to be $45,000,000,000 yearly, with an additional

$70,500,000,000 lost in quality of life due to these

crashes; and
2

•HCON 108 IH

Whereas drunk driving is the Nation’s most frequently committed violent crime, and alcohol use represents the number 1 drug problem among young people: Now, therefore,

be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—

3 (1) a postage stamp should be issued by the

4 United States Postal Service to raise public aware5 ness of the serious problem of driving while intoxi6 cated; and

7 (2) the Citizens’ Stamp Advisory Committee

8 should recommend to the Postmaster General that

9 such a stamp be issued.

Æ
IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

‐‐‐‐ooOoo‐‐‐‐

Masooda Syed,

Petitioner,

v.

Department of Workforce Services,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

PER CURIAM DECISION

Case No. 20120312‐CA

F I L E D

(September 20, 2012)

   2012 UT App 266

‐‐‐‐‐

Original Proceeding in this Court

Attorneys: Masooda Syed, San Diego, California, Petitioner Pro Se

Suzan Pixton, Salt Lake City, for Respondent Department of Workforce

Services

‐‐‐‐‐

Before Judges McHugh, Thorne, and Roth.

¶1 Masooda Syed petitions for review of the decision of the Workforce Appeals

Board (the Board) affirming the denial of unemployment benefits based upon Syed’s

discharge for just cause.  This matter is before the court on a sua sponte motion for

summary disposition.  We decline to disturb the Board’s decision.

¶2 Syed does not dispute the Board’s conclusion that theft of money from a

donation box located inside the business constitutes just cause to support termination.

Instead, Syed argues that the Board erred in finding that she had stolen money out of

the donation box.  Syed asserts that she was “set up” to make it look like she had stolen

the money because her supervisor did not like her and because she was due a

substantial amount of severance pay since her position was about to be eliminated due

to a reduction in force.
20120312‐CA 2

¶3 This court will reverse an administrative agency’s findings of fact “only if the

findings are not supported by substantial evidence.”  Drake v. Industrial Comm’n, 939

P.2d 177, 181 (Utah 1997).  “Substantial evidence is that quantum and quality of relevant

evidence that is adequate to convince a reasonable mind to support a conclusion.”

Smith v. Workforce Appeals Bd., 2011 UT App 68, ¶ 9, 252 P.3d 372.  Furthermore,

appellate courts will not reassess an agency’s credibility determinations or reweigh the

evidence in a proceeding where conflicting evidence is presented.  See Questar Pipeline v.

Utah Tax Comm’n, 850 P.2d 1175, 1178 (Utah 1993).  Rather, it is the agency’s prerogative

to assign weight to conflicting witness testimony.  See id.

¶4 In its decision, the Board deferred to the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ)

credibility determination.  The ALJ heard testimony from both Syed’s supervisor, who

placed the marked bills in the collection box, and Syed’s manager, to whom Syed

confessed that she had stolen the money.  The ALJ also heard Syed’s testimony that she

had not stolen the money.  After hearing all of the testimony, the ALJ found that the

company’s witnesses were more credible than Syed.  Furthermore, the Board found that

Syed provided no evidence to support her accusations that she had been “set up.”

Therefore, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the finding that Syed

took the money from the donation box.

¶5 Accordingly, we decline to disturb the Board’s decision.

____________________________________

Carolyn B. McHugh,

Presiding Judge

____________________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge

____________________________________

Stephen L. Roth, Judge