alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Nancy Jones

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 11:51:40 AM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept the

recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of preventive care under the

new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive

services are a critical element of the new law and would provide countless women better access

to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access to

contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive services, are

pushing the government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for

the exemption to apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious

affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of

all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to thousands of

women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions
May 12, 2015

Mr. John Cymbalsky

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

Building Technologies EE-5B

1000 Independence Ave. SW

Washington, DC 20585

Dear John,

At the March 27, 2015 public meeting to discuss the notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) 

regarding amended efficiency standards for residential non-weatherized gas furnaces and mobile 

home furnaces the slide “Base Case Efficiency Distribution Chart” was presented. At that time 

we noted that the information for the years 2010 through 2014 was incorrect. To address this 

issue we are providing the following information on national annual shipments of noncondensing and condensing residential gas furnaces for 2010 through 2014.

Although this statistical data is not normally publicly available information, in this case we will

allow this information to be in the docket for this rule. If you have any questions about this 

information, please contact me.

Respectfully submitted,

Frank A. Stanonik

Chief Technical Advisor

Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Total Non-Condensing 1,143,969 1,157,253 1,185,699 1,363,953 1,407,179

Total Condensing 1,309,310 1,058,907 1,057,698 1,237,807 1,327,534

Total 2,453,279 2,216,160 2,243,397 2,601,760 2,734,713

% Condensing 53% 48% 47% 47% 48.5%
From: pat benson

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: preventive care

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 8:38:45 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept

the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of preventive care

under the new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These

preventive services are a critical element of the new law and would provide countless women

better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access to

contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive services,

are pushing the government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are

pushing for the exemption to apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with

religious affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they

employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny

access to thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.
REVHOLDINGS LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form10-Q of REV Holdings LLC (the "Company") forthe period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Todd J. Slotkin, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

/s/ Todd J.Slotkin                        ToddJ. SlotkinChief Financial OfficerMay 16,2005

----
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 of Alpharma Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ingrid Wiik, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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.







Dated:   February 27, 2004







/s/ Ingrid Wiik				
Ingrid Wiik
President and Chief Executive Officer







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 of Alpharma Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Matthew Farrell, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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.







Dated:  February 27, 2004







/s/Matthew Farrell		
Matthew Farrell
Executive Vice President and

Chief Financial Officer
From: Vivian Valtri Burgess

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Support Access to Preventive Care and Contraception!

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 4:25:29 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking

you to accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain

to coverage of preventive care under the new health care law, and to

reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive services

are a critical element of the new law and would provide countless women

better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny

women access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological

distaste for all contraceptive services, are pushing the government to

make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the

exemption to apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with

religious affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement, even

though they employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this

larger exemption would deny access to thousands of women just because of

where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by

accepting IOM’s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious

refusal exemption provisions.

Thank you,

Vivian Valtri Burgess
From: PEG NORTON

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 8:16:49 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

PEG NORTON
FORT PIERCE, Florida
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                 PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                     428,500
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                         0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         82,226
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       89,487
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                  1,804
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                602,017
<COMMON>                                        5,848
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                     102,817
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            62,281
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                171,486
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                     2,314
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                          182,548
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             37,200
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                           0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                      0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   6,603
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                           0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                         0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                    0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                201,866
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                 602,017
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                     120,599
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            8,426
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     92,181
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                    100,607
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        19,992
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                  0
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 19,992
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        4,825
<NET-INCOME>                                   15,167
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        43
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  15,124
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        3,825
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       3,374
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         27,958
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    6.47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    6.47
        

</TABLE>
From: Tascio, Elizabeth A. (UMKC-Student)

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: No exemptions for "religious" employers, please.

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 2:48:06 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to

accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of

preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for

“religious employers.” These preventive services are a critical element of the new law

and would provide countless women better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access

to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive

services, are pushing the government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some

groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to religiously-run health providers, so

hospitals with religious affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement,

even though they employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger

exemption would deny access to thousands of women just because of where they

work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Tascio
EXHIBIT 99.2
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                     18 U.S.C SECTION 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

<S>   <C>                   <C>     <C>

The undersigned hereby certifies, in my capacity as an
officer of NSTAR, for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

  (i)  the enclosed Quarterly Report of NSTAR on Form 10-Q
       for the period ended September 30, 2002 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 such Report fairly
       presents, in all material respects, the financial
       condition and results of operation of NSTAR.

Dated:  November 13,2002        By:    /s/ THOMAS J. MAY
                                      Thomas J. May
                                      Chairman, President and
                                        Chief Executive Officer
</TABLE>
#### Merchants’ Bank of Rochester and others, Respondents, v. Yette Thalheimer, Appellant, Impleaded, etc.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, with leave to the defendant to withdraw demurrer and answer over within twenty days on payment of the costs of the demurrer and of this appeal. Opinion by

Haight, J.
[Civ. No. 1521.

Second Appellate District.

April 17. 1914.]

#### R. M. BAKER, Appellant, v. EILERS MUSIC COMPANY, Respondent.

Appeal—Delay in Piling Transcript—Pendency of Application for New Trial.—Motion to dismiss appeal denied on the authority of *Baker*v. *Eilers Music Company, ante,*p. 348.

MOTION to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. J. P. Wood, Judge.

The facts are similar to those stated in the opinion in *Baker*v. *Eilers Music Company, ante,*p. 348.

*805Lucius M. Fall, for Appellant.

Frank Bryant, for Respondent.

THE COURT.

The facts presented upon this motion are in all respects similar to those under consideration in case No. 1520, *Baker*v. *Eilers Music Company,*(Civ. No. 1520), *ante,*p. 348, [141 Pac. 395], in which the motion to dismiss the appeal was denied. For the reasons stated in the opinion filed in that case, the motion of respondent for an order dismissing the appeal herein is denied.

A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on June 16, 1914.
From: gayle westerhuis

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Thursday, August 04, 2011 1:16:38 AM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

gayle westerhuis
Portland, Oregon
EX-4.57



 Exhibit 4.57 

FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE RAGNAROK ONLINE GAME 

LICENSE AGREEMENT 
 This
Fourth Amendment (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into on August 27th, 2015 (hereinafter called “Effective Date”), by and between Gravity Co., Ltd.
(hereinafter referred to as “Licensor”) a corporation duly organised and existing under the laws of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as “Korea”) and having its offices at (Sangam-Dong, Nuritkum Square R&D
Tower15F), 396, World Cup buk-ro, Mapo-Gu, Seoul, Korea (hereinafter to as “Korea”) and PT. LYTO DATARINDO FORTUNA., a corporation having its principal place of business at Jalan Arteri Pos Pengumben NO.8 RT 005/08 Kelurahan
Sukabumi Selatan Kecamatan Kebon Jeruk Kota Administrasi, JAKARTA BARAT 11560 INDONESIA. (hereinafter called “Licensee”). 

RECITALS 

WHEREAS, Licensor and Licensee (“Parties” collectively) entered into a Ragnarok Online Game License Agreement (“The
Agreement”), dated on February 27th, 2010. 
 WHEREAS, Parties entered
into a First Amendment to the Ragnarok Online Game License Agreement (“First Amendment”), dated on October 1st, 2011. 

WHEREAS, Parties entered into Second Amendment to the Ragnarok Online Game License Agreement (“Second Amendment”), dated on
February 27th, 2013. 
 WHEREAS, Parties entered into Third Amendment to
the Ragnarok Online Game License Agreement (“Third Amendment”), dated on February 27th, 2015. 

WHEREAS, this Amendment is supplemental to the Agreement, and the Parties enter into this Amendment, to amend certain provisions in the
Agreement. 
 WHEREAS, Parties hereto desires to amend The Agreement as specified below. 

AGREEMENT 
 NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises and covenants contained herein, Parties agree as follows: 
 1. Renewal Term 

Parties agreed to extend the Agreement for One (1) year from the expiration date of The Agreement with conditions stated in this
Amendment. The newly extended term of The Agreement shall be from August 27th, 2015 to August 26th, 2016 without any License Fee.








 2. Continuing Effectiveness of The Agreement 

Except as expressly set forth herein, this Amendment shall not by implication or otherwise alter, modify, amend or in any way affect any of the terms,
conditions, obligations, covenants or agreements contained in The Agreement amended by its First Amendment, Second Amendment and Third Amendment, all of which are ratified and affirmed in all respects and shall continue in full force and effect.

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Parties have executed this Amendment on the date first above written. 

 

									
	 Gravity Co., Ltd.
	 	 PT. LYTO DATARINDO FORTUNA

			
	 By:
                                        

	 		 	     By:
                                        


			
	 Name: Hyun Chul Park
	 		 	      Name: Andi Suryanto

			
	 Title: CEO
	 		 	      Title: CEO
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Billy Joe Hernandez, Appellant

No. 06-14-00013-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 297th District Court of 

Tarrant County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

1215541D). Opinion delivered by Justice 

Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

Carter participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Billy Joe Hernandez, has adequately indicated his inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JULY 23, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
EXHIBIT 99.4



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



As of the date hereof, I, Eric Borrmann, 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 Plumtree Software, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2003 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Plumtree Software, Inc.



By:

/s/    ERIC
BORRMANNName:

Eric BorrmannTitle:

Chief Financial OfficerDated:

July 24, 2003