alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 21


                             CT COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
                                AND SUBSIDIARIES

                           Subsidiaries of the Company

                                                             State of
                       Name                                 Incorporation
                     --------                              ---------------
   The Concord Telephone Company                             North Carolina
   CTC Long Distance Services, Inc.                          North Carolina
   CT Cellular, Inc.                                         North Carolina
   Carolina Personal Communications, Inc.                    North Carolina
   CT Wireless Cable, Inc.                                   North Carolina
   CTC Exchange Services, Inc.                               North Carolina
   CT Global Telecommunications, Inc.                        Delaware
   CTC Internet, Inc.                                        North Carolina
   CT Communications Northeast Trust                         Massachusetts
   CT Communications Northeast, Inc.                         Massachusetts
#### In the Matter of the Application of Joseph T. Stevens, a creditor, for the disposition of the Real Estate of John P. Dodge, Deceased, for the payment of his debts.

Decree of surrogate reversed, rehearingordered, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Bockes, J.;

Landon, J., concurring in result; Learned, P. J., dissenting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------

:Page 1 of 1 

LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION 


PUBLfCATJON& REGULATIONS 


As of: August 20, 2010 

Received: August 09, 2010 

BRANCH 

Status: Posted 

Posted: August 20, 2010 

Tracking No. 80b2c6f2 

PUBLIC 

SUBMISSION Comments Due: August 16, 2010 

Submission Type: Web 

Docket: IRS-2010-0010 

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Rules Relating to Status as a Grandfathel'ed 

Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Afforable Care Act 

Comment On: IRS-201O-00l0-0001 

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage: Interim Final Rules for Relating to Statu:; as 

a Grandfathered Health Plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

Document: IRS-201O-001O-0268 

Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488 

Submitter Information 

Name: Wendy S Brueder 

Address: 

Glendale, CA, 91206 

General Comment 

See attached file(s) 

Attachments 

IRS-2010-0010-0268.1: Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488 

https:llfdms.erulemaking.netlfdms-web-agency1componentisubmitterlnfoCoverPage?Call=... 8/20/2010 
August 9, 2010 

Office ofConsumer Information and Insurance Oversight 

Department of Health and Human Services 

Attention: OCII0-9991-IFC 

P.O. Box 8016 

Baltimore, MD 21244-1850 

Re: Interim Final Rule for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating to 

Status as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

As a consumer I wish to take this opportunity to formally comment on 

the interim final rule regarding health plans and "grandfather" status (Document ID IRS-20 10­

0010-0001). 

I believe the consumer protections included as part of the new health care law are vitally 

important and should be extended to as many people as possible. Accordingly, every effort 

should be made to increase the number of individuals covered by the Patient Protection and 

Affordable Care Act (PPACA) via the above regulations. The triggers or conditions that would 

extend these protections to consumers under currently existing "grand fathered" plans should not 

be weakened or reduced in any way. I specifically support the position and detailed comments 

offered by the American Chiropractic Association with respect to the implementation ofthe~e 

regulations. 

Wendy Brueder 

Glendale, CA 91206 

Bruederism@sbcglobal.net
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 6 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                       January 3, 2001.
    Resolved, That the following named Members be, and they are hereby, elected 
to the following standing committee of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Rules: Mr. Dreier, Chairman, Mr. Goss, Mr. Linder, Ms. Pryce of 
Ohio, Mr. Diaz-Balart, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Sessions, 
and Mr. Reynolds.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
§ 536.6 Treatment of credits earned prior to model year 2011. ( a ) Credits earned in a compliance category before model year 2008 may be applied by the manufacturer that earned them to carryback plans for that compliance category approved up to three model years prior to the year in which the credits were earned, or may be applied to compliance in that compliance category for up to three model years after the year in which the credits were earned.
( b ) Credits earned in a compliance category during and after model year 2008 may be applied by the manufacturer that earned them to carryback plans for that compliance category approved up to three years prior to the year in which the credits were earned, or may be held or applied for up to five model years after the year in which the credits were earned.
( c ) Credits earned in a compliance category prior to model year 2011 may not be transferred or traded.
Amendment #2 to Final Settlement Agreement



 Exhibit 10.7C 
  
 Amendment Number 2 
 To 
 Final Settlement Agreement 
 Re Cancellation of Syntron, Inc. 
 Purchase Orders 45224 & 203491 
  
 This Amendment Number 2 modifies the Final Settlement Agreement Re Cancellation of Syntron, Inc. Purchase Orders 45224 & 203491 between
Chesapeake Sciences Corporation and Syntron, Inc. and Amendment 1 thereto. The Final Settlement Agreement Re Cancellation of Syntron, Inc. Purchase Orders 45224 & 203491 between Chesapeake Sciences Corporation and Syntron, Inc., Amendment Number
1 thereto, and this Amendment Number 2 shall be referred to collectively as the “Agreement”. Chesapeake Sciences Corporation, Syntron, Inc., Hytek Microsystems Incorporated and Sercel, Inc. agree as follows: 
  

	1.	Paragraph 7., sub-paragraph a. – replace in its entirety with: 

  
 a. The Unit Price for the completed specific hybrid assemblies shall be as follows: 
  

						
	Syntron Part Number

	    	 Description

	    	Unit Price


	65-400001	    	OSC/ATTEN	    	$	260.00
	65-400002	    	Old PREAMP	    	$	300.00
	65-400003	    	TRACK/EQUAL	    	$	205.00
	65-400004	    	West PREAMP	    	$	300.00

  

	2.	Paragraph 7., sub-paragraph c. – Replace in its entirety 

  

	3.	Chesapeake Sciences Corporation assigns, and Hytek Microsystems Incorporated accepts, all of the Chesapeake Sciences Corporation rights and obligations as they exist under the
Agreement as of 11 July 2001 with the explicit exclusion of any then currently open Purchase Orders issued by Sercel, Inc. to Chesapeake Sciences Corporation related to the Final Settlement Agreement Re Cancellation of Syntron, Inc. Purchase Orders
45224 & 203491 between Chesapeake Sciences Corporation and Syntron, Inc. and Amendment Number 1 thereto. 

  

	4.	Sercel, Inc., which acquired the on-going business of Syntron, Inc. including the rights and obligations as they then existed under the Final Settlement Agreement Re Cancellation of
Syntron, Inc. Purchase Orders 45224 & 203491 between Chesapeake Sciences Corporation and Syntron, Inc. and Amendment Number 1 thereto, agrees to the assignment indicated in Paragraph 3. above. 

  

	5.	All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain unchanged. 








 IN WITNESS THEROF, the parties have duly executed this Amendment Number 12 to be effective as of 11 July
2001. 
  

											
	 	 	 AGREED ON BEHALF OF
 HYTEK MICROSYSTEMS
 INCORPORATED
	 	 	 	 AGREED ON BEHALF OF
 CHESAPEAKE SCIENCES
 CORPORATION

				
	 	 	 By:

	 	 	 	 By:


	 	 	             /s/ Jon Presnell
	 	 	 	             /s/ Gordon Cumming

				
	 	 	 Printed Name:
	 	 	 	 Printed Name:

				
	 	 	 Title: President
	 	 	 	 Title: Vice President

				
	 	 	 Date: 18 July 2001
	 	 	 	 Date: 17 July 2001

				
	 	 	 AGREED ON BEHALF OF SERCEL, INC.
	 	 	 	 
				
	 	 	 By:

	 	 	 	 
	 	 	                                 Copy Unsigned
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 Printed Name:
	 	 	 	 
				
	 	 	 Title:
	 	 	 	 
				
	 	 	 Date:
1210-AB32-2-1562.html[7/26/2015 7:41:13 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 11, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jx9-e4j5

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-2059

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Jeremy Oakey

General Comment

This is another government program and I don't want any part of it. I don't need the governments help with

 saving and planning for my retirement. If anything, I'll get a better return and be able to use MY money in the

 ways that most benefit me by having government completely removed from the process entirely.

I'd rather not contribute to SS at all any longer. It's money I'll never see and it's used inappropriately time and

 time again by our elected officials. Anyone voting for programs, bills and legislation that does anything other

 than remove the government from my retirement and savings planning will not get my vote ever again.
JOHNSTON LAW OFFICE

131-A Stony Circle, Suite 500

Santa Rosa, California 95401

(707) 939-5299

Fax (707) 837-9532

e-mail: Richard.Johnston@Johnston-Law-Office.com

December 11, 2017

Via electronic mail transmission to e-ORI@dol.gov

Timothy D. Hauser

Deputy Assistant Secretary

United States Department of Labor

Office of Regulations and Interpretations

Employee Benefits Security Administration

Room M-5655

200 Constitution Avenue NW

Washington D.C. 20210

Re: Claims Procedure Regulations for Plans Providing Disability Benefits

Examination

RIN No.: 1210-AB39

Regulation: 29 CFR § 2560.503-1

Dear Deputy Assistant Secretary Hauser:

I write to comment on the contemplated revisiting of amendments to claims-procedure 

regulations for ERISA-governed disability benefit plans. These regulations interest me greatly 

because, in my law practice, I focus on representing claimants in disputes respecting these sorts 

of claims. I have considerable experience in how these regulations impact claimants and the 

claims process, as I have represented both claimants and institutional defendants in ERISA 

disability disputes over my 30-year legal career.

I trust that you will be receiving quite a few comments and expect that those comments 

from people looking out for the interests of claimants will be seriously considered.

I would like to offer just a couple of brief thoughts. First, as I understand it the ERISA 

insurance industry is contending that unless the regulations are revisited, coasts of providing 

coverage will increase prohibitively. So far as I know, the basis for this contention has not been 

made public, and we are expected to accept the industry’s ipse dixit. But we have heard this many

times before, and the industry always seems to find a way to stay in business. I seriously doubt 

that the rather modest improvements in the regulations that the now-delayed amendments 

would effect would so profoundly impact their bottom line.

Seconds, as I understand it the industry has also objected that the amendments would 

disadvantage them unduly in judicial proceedings. If they are serious about that then they have 

more chutzpah than I could ever muster. ERISA, as interpreted by the courts over the years, has 

afforded the insurance industry unique and unprecedented immunity from liability and has 

altered the usual rules of engagement in court quite drastically in their favor. Any movement in 
Timothy D. Hauser

Re: Claims Procedure Regulations for Plans Providing Disability Benefits Examination

December 11, 2017

Page 2

the other direction would represent at best a very modest tweak in what remains an

unacceptably unfair system.

For these and other reasons the delayed amendments should be made effective without

further delay.

Thank you for considering my input.

 

 

Very truly yours,

Richard Johnston

RJ/tlv
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 Quarterly Report of RegeneRx (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J.J. Finkelstein,
Chief Executive and 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:

      (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.




 May 14, 2004                        /s/J.J. Finkelstein
                                     -------------------------------------
                                     Chief Executive and Financial Officer
#### WILLIAM D. GORDON, SECRETARY OF BANKING OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN POSSESSION OF THE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY OF BANK OF PHILADELPHIA AND TRUST COMPANY, PLAINTIFF, v. EDWIN DAVIS AND ELIZA P. DAVIS, DEFENDANTS.

Decided November 8, 1933.

Tor the motion, *Meyer L. Bakin.*

Opposed, *Meehan Brothers.*

Lawrence, S. C. C.

This is a suit on a foreign judgment. It was obtained by plaintiff against the defendants in the Court of Common Pleas, No. 5, for the county of Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, at the September term of that court, 1932. An exemplified copy of the record discloses that it was there entered on a bond and warrant of attorney by confession of judgment. The answer here filed sets up that at the time of the entry of the judgment, defendants were resident in the State of New Jersey and were not served with process in the proceeding in Pennsylvania. An examination of the record is sufficient to indicate that the answer should *879be stricken as sham. A bond and warrant of attorney was executed by defendants in connection with a mortgage covering premises (apparently a second encumbrance) owned by defendants in Philadelphia. The debt secured was not paid and the mortgage was foreclosed. On a sale of the property, a deficiency in the mortgage debt resulted, whereupon judgment was entered therefor on the bond in pursuance of the warrant of attorney, under the Pennsylvania statute. Service of process on defendants was consequently not necessary and the fact that they were at the time residents in New Jersey is immaterial. *Smith*v. *Swart,*103 *N. J. L.*150; 134 *Atl. Rep. 755.*Any real defense defendants may have had was and is subject to consideration in the court where the judgment was originally entered on an application to open it. A rule may be entered striking the answer here filed as sham. There being no other questions involved, judgment may be entered for the debt, interest and costs.
H. Res. 574

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

October 8, 2002.

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it

shall be in order without intervention of any point of order

to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 114)

to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against

Iraq. The joint resolution shall be considered as read for

amendment. The amendment to the preamble and the amendment to the text recommended by the Committee on International Relations and now printed in the joint resolution

shall be considered as adopted. The previous question shall

be considered as ordered on the joint resolution, as amended,

and on any further amendments thereto to final passage

without intervening motion except: (1) 17 hours of debate on

the joint resolution, as amended, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the

Committee on International Relations, which may be extended pursuant to section 2; (2) the further amendments

printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, which may be offered only in the
2

•HRES 574 EH

order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member

designated in the report, shall be in order without intervention of any point of order or demand for division of the question, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided

and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; (3) after

the conclusion of consideration of the amendments printed in

the report of the Committee on Rules, a final period of debate on the joint resolution, as amended, which shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman

and ranking minority member of the Committee on International Relations; and (4) one motion to recommit with or

without instructions.

SEC. 2. It shall be in order for the Majority Leader or

his designee, after consultation with the Minority Leader, to

move to extend debate on the joint resolution, as amended.

Such motion shall not be subject to debate or amendment.

SEC. 3. During consideration of House Joint Resolution

114 pursuant to the first section of this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair

may postpone further consideration of the joint resolution to
3

•HRES 574 EH

a time designated by the Speaker either on the same legislative day or on the next legislative day.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### George J. Desh, *Appellant, v.*Oliver W. Barnes, *Respondent.*

Judgment affirmed ; order denying motion for new trial reversed and the motion granted on payment of the costs of the trial to be-adjusted, and ten dollars costs of opposing motion and the costs of the appeal. Opinion by

Davis, P. J.
[08/09/2010 

Office ofConsumer 'Information and Insurance Oversight 


Department ofHealth and Human Services 


Attention: OCIIO-9991-IFC 


• 	 P.O. Box 8016 


Baltimore, MD 21244-1850 


. Re: Interim Final Rule for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating to 

Status as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

Below are my comments regarding the Interim Final Rule for Group Health Plans and Health 

Insurance Coverage Relating to Status as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient 

.. 'Protection and-Affordable€are Act (pPACA). -'--.­

I believe that every effort should be made to increase the number ofindividuals covered by 

PPACA, especially as ofJanuary 1, 2014 when most ofthe reform components (Insurance 

Exchanges, Subsidies, Tax Credits, etc.) come into play. 

The average consumer has a broad definition of"benefits." Consumers view their health plan 

beyond the covered benefits, cost sharing, and the contribution levels associated with the plan. 

!;! It is my opinion that the Ru1e may still result in some confusion to the marketplace in its 

application. For example, if an employer raised the copayment level beyond the maximum in one 

" 	 area (i.e. outpatient services) but retained the copayment level for primary care doctor visits, 

does;thaCmeari.fa'.loss ofgrandfather status? Clarity will be critical both for the employer and the 

employee. 

Even by the most optimistic estimates, a substantial portion ofthe employee population will 

iem.aitt'outside.the'PPAOAas:of January 2014 based on the current rules. While I understand the 

difficulty involved iriIliakihg change; creating another large,sub-populatio]lofexch.lded: " .' , 

individuals' will only I add to costs, incte,ase confusioll; and initigate the potential' impact ofthe'.'. 

leg ' ·l·slatl'on.;' .' 	 " ',' , .... .., '.' ",., ,." ,. ; I: : .,. ... .. , 

The Ru1e,needs to be clear; reasonable"and,with no ambiguities involved in determining whether 

a group health plan is "in or out," The decisions the federal government makes today will 

determine the outcomes for tomorrow, We may need to make some difficult decisions to create 

asustainable health care system that will support a growingecono~yjn the fu~ure: Tp,at means 

getting asniany citizens across the country participating atthe beginning to Qlake.it work and 

delivering on its promises to retain their support.· . , , .; .. ~ ~ • • . ' , [ , , , " , , f r. 	[; '~\ ~ . " ,! t ( , 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this regulation, 

:';::. ti :,,~)\, \~< 

T; 

',' . • ",j ~' ';, ~ .;.':~:':l ' 

e;-mai l·@ eaadG:@twlake's!I'net ' , " 	 I •. !'
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 167 (Wednesday, August 30, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 59886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18722]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Portsmouth

AGENCY: Office of Environmental Management, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting: cancellation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On August 9, 2023, the Department of Energy published a notice 
of open meeting announcing a meeting on September 7, 2023, of the 
Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Portsmouth. This 
notice announces the cancellation of this meeting.

DATES: The meeting scheduled for September 7, 2023, announced in the 
August 9, 2023, issue of the Federal Register (FR Doc. 2023-17039, 85 
FR 53872), is cancelled.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Roberts, Board Support Manager, 
by Phone: (270) 554-3004 or Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8feafde6eccfffe8ebffeceeeda1e0fde8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4d283f242e0d3d2a293d2e2c2f63223f2a">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on August 24, 2023.
LaTanya Butler,
Deputy Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2023-18722 Filed 8-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### United States Trust Company v. The New York, West Shore and Buffalo Railroad Company.

Order affirmed, with costs.
#### § 609.1 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to establish formally the requirements of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) on transportation for elderly and handicapped persons.