alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Qaeda!

Page 1 of 1

Sep 8 2010
LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION
PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS
BRANCH IAs of: September 08, 2010
Received: August 13, 2010
P U B LI C Status: Posted
Posted: September 08, 2010
Ss U B M I SSI Oo N Tracking No. 80b307bf
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 Grandfathe-ed
Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Afforable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0010-0001
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage: Interim Final Rules for Relating to Status as
a Grandfathered Health Plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Document: IRS-2010-0010-0820
Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488

Submitter Information

General Comment

8-13-2010

Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight
Department of Health 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

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-2010-
0010-0001).

I believe the consumer protections included as part of the new health care taw 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 “grandfathered” 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 of these
regulations.

Bob Schatz

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=P... 9/8/2010
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 168 (Thursday, August 31, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60247-60248]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18791]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service 
Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: August 31, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
August 21,

[[Page 60248]]

2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to 
Add Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 2 to Competitive Product List. 
Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2023-238, CP2023-
241.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2023-18791 Filed 8-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
----

Action brought on 29 December 2003 by Ulrike Eppe against European Parliament

(Case T-439/03)

(2004/C 94/126)

Language of the case: German

An action against the European Parliament was brought against the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 29 December 2003 by Ulrike Eppe, residing in Hanover (Germany), represented by D. Rogalla, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The pleas in law and arguments are similar to those raised in Case T-412/03 (Wille v Parliament, not yet published).

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF CML GROUP, INC. FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED
JULY 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,851,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,405,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,115,000
<INVENTORY>                                 24,753,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            37,648,000
<PP&E>                                      75,419,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              43,474,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              94,332,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      150,563,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,493,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (73,151,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                94,332,000
<SALES>                                    274,360,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           274,360,000
<CGS>                                      161,875,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              161,875,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,026,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          11,074,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (95,962,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                31,416,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (127,378,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                             (127,378,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.54)
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32-7



Certificate Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 United States Code



The undersigned officer hereby certifies, as to the Report on Form 10-K of PECO Energy Company for the year ended December 31,
2007, that (i) the report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of PECO Energy Company.



|                       |  |  |  |                                                       
|---------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------
|Date: February 7, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/    DENIS P.
OBRIEN                               
|                       |  |  |  | Denis P. OBrien Chief Executive Officer and President



448
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I,HowardSampson, the Chief Financial Officer of iVOW, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(a) the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended March 31,2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(b) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 
| Date:May 16, 2005       |       |
|------------------------------|------------|
|                         |       |
| /s/ Howard Sampson           |       |
| **Howard Sampson**           | ** ** |
| **Chief  Financial Officer** | ** ** |

 

 

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to iVOW, Inc. and will beretained by iVOW, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission upon request.

 

----
Cheshire, )

April 2,1912.

#### Creier *v.*Fitzwilliam.

One who cares for a small-pox patient in quarantine cannot recover of the town therefor, unless he was employed by the officer in charge of the case, or the board of health has determined that such expense is a legitimate disbursement for the protection of the public.

A town is not liable for property destroyed by its health officers as a measure of public protection, in the absence of statutory liability.

Assumpsit, for board, nursing, and bedding destroyed. Trial by the court. Transferred from the April term, 1911, of the superior court by *Mitchell,*J.

In December, 1907, one Hautaula, a boarder in the plaintiff's family, was taken sick with the small-pox. A physician, who was *383also a member of the board of health of the defendant town, was first called to treat him, and subsequently the patient was quarantined by the board in the plaintiff’s house. A nurse and medical treatment were provided. The plaintiff’s wife assisted in caring for the patient, but the board made no contract with her or her husband to employ her, or to pay for her services. As the protection of the public required the destruction of the bedding used by Hautaula when he was taken sick, it was destroyed by the board. The court ruled that the plaintiff could not recover for the services of his wife or for the bedding destroyed, and he excepted.

*Conrad W. Crooker,*for the plaintiff.

*Orville E. Cain*(by brief and orally), for the defendants.

Walker, J.

The plaintiff cannot recover of the town for the care furnished by his wife to the patient, because she was not employed by the health officer in charge of the case and the board of health has not decided that any part of this expense should be “deemed a legitimate expenditure for the protection of the public health.” Laws 1899, *c.*100, *ss.*1, 2; *Pettengill*v. *Amherst,*72 N. H. 103.

When the officer destroyed the infected bedding he was not acting as the agent of the town, but as a public officer under legislative authority, for the benefit and protection of the public. He was as much a public officer as highway surveyors, police officers, and firemen *(Brown*v. *Vinalhaven,*65 Me. 402; *Barbour*v. *Ellsworth,*67 Me. 294; *Ogg*v. *Lansing,*35 Ia. 495), for whose act while in the discharge of a public or governmental duty, even if wrongful, the town is not responsible, in the absence of a statute making it responsible therefor. *Edgerly*v. *Concord,*62 N. H. 8; *Rhobidas*v. *Concord,*70 N. H. 90; *O’Brien*v. *Derry,*73 N. H. 198; *Gates*v. *Milan, ante,*135. As no statute has been found making towns liable for property destroyed by health officers, the plaintiff cannot recover for this item of his specification.

*Exception overruled.*

All concurred.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

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

Page 1 of 1

AU!" 2 ~ <1"·'0 rx £ G- ~ J ) rr t/12 -/0

' , . (7 V L.U I' 

LEGAL PROCESSING D[VISION 

PUBLICATION &. REGULATIONS 

BRANCH 

As of: August 26, 2010 

Received: August 10, 2010 

Status: Posted 

Posted: August 26, 2010 

Tracking No. 80b2da38 

PUBLIC 

SUBMISSION Comments Due: August 161 2010 

Submission Type: Web 

Docket: IRS-2010-0010 


Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Rules Relating to Status as a Grandfathered 


Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Afforable Care Act 


Comment On: IRS-2010-0010-0001 


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


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


Document: IRS-2010-0010-0434 


Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488 


Submitter Information 

Name: Brent Oesterritter 

Address: 

Seneca Falls, NY, 13148 

Email: ukrowdy@yahoo.com 

General Comment 

See attached file(s) 

Attachments 

IRS-2010-0010-0434.1: Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488 

https:llfdms.erulemaking.netlfdms-web-agency/componentlsubmitterInfoCoverPage?Call=... g/26/2010 
8/10/1 0 

Office of Consumer 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-~:O 1 0­

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 arid 

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 of these 

regulations. 

Brent Oesterritter 

lIkrowdy@~yahoo.com
Page 1 of 2

VISION “37 ; (Qe
LEG. pRocessiNG PISTONS BEEHSH2QTO
PUBLICATION & BRANCH. “ AUG 2 7 2010

[As of: August 26, 2010
PUBLIC Statuse Posted,
Posted: August 26, 2010
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 Grandfathered
Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Afforable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0010-0001
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage: Interim Final Rules for Relating to Status as
a Grandfathered Health Plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Document: IRS-2010-0010-0489
Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488

Ss

Submitter Information

Name: Carol Ann Fitzsimons
Address:
360 central park west
New York, NY 10025, 10025
Email: fitzsimonsc@aol.com
SS

General Comment

August 11, 2010

Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight
Department of Health 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

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-2010-
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 “grandfathered” plans should not
be weakened or reduced in any way. I specifically support the position and detailed comments

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=... 8/26/2010


Page 2 of 2

offered by the American Chiropractic Association with respect to the implementation of these
regulations.

Carol Fitzsimons, Ph.D

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=..._ 8/26/2010
#### DONALD W. BLACK, PLAINTIFF, v. JAMES H. EMACK AND SUSAN C. EMACK, DEFENDANTS.

Decided May 9, 1933.

For the motion, *George M. Stevens.*

*Contra, Wilfred B. Wolcott.*

*364Donges, J.

This is a motion to quash a writ of attachment. The writ was tested November 30th, 1926, and was served December 4th, 1926, by attaching the lands of defendants, and an appraisal was made. On December 13th, 1926, an order for publication and appointing an auditor was signed. Nothing further has been done. Defendant moves to quash for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with the statute. Section 21 provides “at the expiration of two months from the return of the writ, he [the auditor] shall make and file a report of the amounts so ascertained.” Admittedly, no report has been filed.

Section 35 provides that where a writ is issued and nothing further done, the writ shall he void after twenty years. Plaintiff claims that under this section he is entitled to bind the property attached for twenty years before prosecuting his action.

Section 21 above quoted clearly provides that upon the return of the writ an auditor shall be appointed, and this was done; that at the expiration of two months he shall make and file a report, and this was not done. Over six years have been allowed to elapse without any move to press plaintiff’s claim. In *Little*v. Long, 93 *N. J. L.*99; 107 *Atl. Rep.*412, it was said that attachment “proceedings are statutory and out of the course of the common law, and result in taking the property of a defendant in an *ex parte*proceeding, *in invitum,*and therefore must be strictly pursued.”

I conclude that there has been a failure of strict compliance with the statute and that plaintiff has shown lack of diligence in prosecuting his action, which should result in quashing the writ!
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (0.41 MB)
 
 U.S. Navy; U.S. Air Force; CENTCOM; AFCENT; USS Abraham Lincoln; B-52H Stratofortress; F-18 Hornet;
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
August 9, 2010 

Office ofConsumer Infonnation and Insmance Oversight 


Department ofHealth and Human Services 


Attention: OCIT0-9991-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 


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


. Protection and Affordable Care Act . 

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


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


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 opiIiion that the Rule may still result in some confusion to the marketplace in its 

appli<1ltion. For example, if an employer raised the copayment level beyond the maximum in one 

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

does ~t mean a loss 9f grandfather 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 

remain outside the PPACA as ofJanuary 2014 based on the current rules, While I understand the 

difficulty involved in making change, creating another large sub-population of excluded 

individuals will only add to costs, increase confusion, and mitigate the potential impact ofthe 

legislation. 

,The Rule ne~ds to. b~ cl,ear, reB:SO~ble, ~~ ~th}l<? ambig~ities !nvolv,e<!. in d~t~~ w~~!,h~~ ;,;;. .~~ a group neaIili plan IS "m 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 

a sustainable health care system that will support a growing economy in the future. lhat means 

getting as many citizens across the country participating at the beginning to make it work and 

delivering on its promises to retain their suppOrt. . \ 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this regulation . • 'l..,