alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: CINDY LE

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 5:19:54 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

CINDY LE

18219 WALL ST

CARSON, ca 90746
From: Zeman, Marilyn

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Objection to Paid Contraception in Health Insurance

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 2:17:57 PM

I object to the fact that contraception should be paid for by my health insurance carrier.

I have a right to my own conscience and I will not support contraception or abortifacients.

I object profusely, to the rulings that were passed on August 1, 2011 by our government. .

Marilyn V. Zeman
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


Certification of President and (Chief Executive Officer)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Industrial Minerals, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending March 31, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Robert G. Dinning, President and (Chief Executive Officer) certify, pursuant
to 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 and belief:

         (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 results of operations of the
Company.

 May 15, 2009                      /s/ Robert G.Dinning
                                   ------------------
                                   Robert G. Dinning
                                   President and CE0



<PAGE>
```

[107th Congress Public Law 178]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ178.107]

[[Page 116 STAT. 579]]

Public Law 107-178
107th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
  at 400 North Main Street in Butte, Montana, as the ``Mike Mansfield 
    Federal Building and United States Courthouse''. <<NOTE: May 17, 
                         2002 -  [H.R. 3282]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building and United States courthouse located at 400 
North Main Street in Butte, Montana, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Mike Mansfield Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building and United States 
courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to 
the ``Mike Mansfield Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

    Approved May 17, 2002.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3282:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 147 (2001):
                                    Dec. 11, considered and passed 
                                        House.
                                                        Vol. 148 (2002):
                                    Apr. 30, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.

                                  <all>
```
Rockingham, )

April 2, 1912.

#### Page *v.*Portsmouth.

The question whether prior notice to the property owner is essential to the validity of a tax assessed under section 9, chapter 59, Public Statutes, is not material upon a petition for abatement of the tax.

Petition, for the abatement of a tax assessed under section 9, chapter 59, Public Statutes. Transferred from the October term, 1911, of the superior court by *Wallace,*C. J., on an agreement that if notice to the plaintiff prior to the assessment was essential to the validity of the tax, it is to be abated.

*John W. Kelley*and *Calvin Page (Mr. Kelley*orally), for the plaintiff.

*Samuel W. Emery, Jr.*(by brief and orally), for the defendants,

Young, J.

The determination of the question transferred is not material to the matter in issue and has not been considered for that reason. The matter in issue in a tax appeal is whether the petitioner’s tax is greater than it should be *(Granite State Land Co.*v. *Hampton, ante,*1, 7; *Winnipiseogee etc. Co.*v. *Laconia,*74 *N.*H. 82; *Conn. Valley Lumber Co.*v. *Monroe,*71 N. H. 473, 479), and not whether the assessors omitted to give him the statutory notice *(Crowell*v. *Londonderry,*63 N. H. 42, 49), or failed to comply with the other provisions of law in respect to making the assessment. *Bickford*v. *Franconia,*73 N. H. 194, 197; *Campbell*v. Windham, 63 N. H. 465.

*Case discharged.*

All concurred.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

      ( print page 60247)    

# 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® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 23, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 41 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2023-249, CP2023-252.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2023-18788 Filed 8-30-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
**Exhibit99.1**

 

CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

John R. Lyon and Stephen A. Gorgol hereby certify that:

 

1.  They are the Chief ExecutiveOfficer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of Vista MedicalTechnologies, Inc. (“Vista”).

 

2.  The Form 10-Q report ofVista that this certification accompanies fully complies with the requirementsof section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

 

3.  The information contained inthe Form 10-Q report of Vista that this certification accompanies fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of Vista.

 

Dated:  August 13, 2002

 
|   |    /s/ John  R. Lyon                                    |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | John R. Lyon,                                                     |
|   | President, Chief Executive Officer and Director                   |
|   |                                                              |
|   | /s/ Stephen A. Gorgol                                             |   |
|   | Stephen A. Gorgol,                                                |
|   | Vice President of Finance,  Chief Financial Officer and Secretary |
|        |                                                                   |        |  |

 

----
LEGAL PPOCESSING DIVISION

Page 1 of 1

PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS Ace- (B4LD i: AUG 2 6 2010

BRANCH i

As of: August 26, 2010

PUBLIC Status Posted

Posted: August 26, 2010
SUBMISSION Comments Duet 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-2010-0010-0407
Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488

Submitter Information

Name: Katy Ratz Mooberry
Address:

Evergreen, 80439
Organization: Get Moving Chiropractic
Government Agency Type: Federal
Government Agency: HRSA

General Comment

See attached file(s)

Attachments

IRS-2010-0010-0407.1: Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488

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


08/10/2010

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

Dr. Katy Mooberry DC
[08/10/2010] 

Office ofConsumer Information and Insurance Oversight 


Department ofHealth and Human Services 


Attention: OCII0-9991-IFC 


P.O. Bok 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 Care 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 Rule 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 (Le. outpatient services) but retained the copayment level for primary care doctor visits, 

ooes that mean a loss of 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 needs to be clear, reasonable, and with no ambiguities involved in determining whether 

. a group health plaifis "in or-out." The dedsions 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. That 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 tbis regulation. 

Dr. Carl Edward Irven 

.!
No. 202, Misc.

#### Cuff *v.*Pennsylvania.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 31.2
                                                                    ------------

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                    SS.302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, James F. Parslow, Chief Financial Officer of Spire Corporation (the
"Company"), certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of the Company.

     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of,
and for, the periods presented in this report.

     4. The Company's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:

          a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

          b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

          c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Company's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the Company's most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the Company's internal control over financial reporting.

     5. The Company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
Company's auditors and the audit committee of the Company's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

          a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the Company's ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial information; and

          b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal control
over financial reporting.


Dated:     March 21, 2006              By: /s/ James F. Parslow
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           James F. Parslow
                                           Chief Financial Officer
#### JACOB WEISS, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. NATHAN GROSS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Submitted May 14, 1932

Decided January 17, 1933.

Before Justices Teenchakd, Case and Bbogan.

For the appellant, *Dubrow ■& Sellyei.*

For the respondent, *David 8. Jacoby*and *Emil Stremlau.*

Pee Cubtam.

This is an appeal by the defendant below from a judgment of the District Court of New Brunswick in favor of the plaintiff rendered by the trial judge sitting without a jury.

The plaintiff sued for the recovery of a deposit paid by plaintiff to defendant on a written agreement for the purchase and sale of an automobile which was not delivered (first count) and upon an agreement to rescind the agreement of sale and return the deposit (second count).

The plaintiff admitted the making of the agreement for purchase, dated May 23d, 1929, which called for the delivery of a 6-80 Stearns Knight-Maroon automobile, year of make 1929. IJpon the trial plaintiff introduced evidence that defendant had represented the automobile to be delivered to bo a new car of the above model and not a second-hand one; that the automobile which the defendant tendered for delivery was a second-hand automobile, and that upon plaintiff’s objection the defendant agreed to rescind the contract and to return the deposit money, which was not done.

We think the court did not err (as defendant contends) in permitting plaintiff to answer the question as to whether he *42was to get a new or second-hand' car. The agreement contained nothing as to the cpndition of the automobile to be delivered, and it was therefore in this respect ambiguous. The language was applicable to a new or a used car. *Dordoni*v. *Hughes,*83 *N. J. L.*355; 85 *Atl. Rep.*353; *Auto Brokerage Co.*v. *Ullrich,*102 *N. J. L.*341; 131 *Atl. Rep.*901; *Bantin*v. *Stanley Automobile Agency,*4 *N. J. Mis. R.*325; 132 *Atl. Rep.*500; *Winfield*v. *Saunders,*6 *N. J. Mis. R.*833; 142 *Atl. Rep.*907.

We think there was evidence upon which the court could and did find for the plaintiff.

The judgment will be affirmed, with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000731947
<NAME>                        Swiss Army Brands, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    US Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                   Jan-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                     Dec-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
<CASH>                                 1,309
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                         32,296
<ALLOWANCES>                             975
<INVENTORY>                           28,890
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      70,383
<PP&E>                                 8,371
<DEPRECIATION>                         4,636
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       100,404 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 25,806 
<BONDS>                                    0  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0  
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                                 885
<OTHER-SE>                            73,713
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         100,404  
<SALES>                              127,851   
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     127,851   
<CGS>                                 77,869   
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         49,005   
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       1,839
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      (133)  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        2,683   
<INCOME-TAX>                           1,220   
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    1,463   
<DISCONTINUED>                             0   
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0   
<CHANGES>                                  0   
<NET-INCOME>                           1,463 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            .18 
<EPS-DILUTED>                            .18 
        



</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1  Certification of Principal Executive Officer  In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 (the Report) of Hamptons Luxury Homes, Inc. (the Registrant), I, Roy Dalene, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:  1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Registrant.   Dated:  May 15, 2008 /s/ Roy Dalene Roy Dalene
From: Barbara Nessinger

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 4:41:18 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Barbara Nessinger

625 Green Meadows Lane

Ovilla, TX 75154
#### William P. Clyde and another, Appellants, v. *643Pierre L. Pierce, Respondent.

Judgment and order denying new trial reversed, and new trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by Dykman, J.