alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page | of 2

LEGAL PROCESSINGDIVISION poy)
PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS EC HMEUR-1C 'G 12-2010

As of: August 12, 2010

PUBLIC Status: Posted

Posted: August 12, 2010
SUBMISSION Comments Due: August 46, 2010

iSubmission 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-2010-0010-0078
Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488

—e
* .
Submitter Information
Name: Jeff W Morrison
Address:
Bradenton, FL,

Submitter's Representative: Jeff Morrison

Organization: American Chiropractic Association
—

General Comment

8/9/10

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

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=... 8/12/2010


Page 2 of 2

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

Jeff Morrison

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=... 8/12/2010
##### 



Exhibit 10.24
 CALLIDUS SOFTWARE INC.
RESTRICTED STOCK AGREEMENT
 Agreement Company Recipient Plan
 Notice of Grant
 Restricted Shares
 Grant Number
    
    2,318Date of Grant
    
    February 28, 2007Total Number of Shares Granted
    
    13,000
 Vesting Schedule
   Tax Treatment
 Restrictions on Transfer




---



##### 



Stock Certificates
 Stockholder Rights
 Representations and Acknowledgments of Recipient
   Spousal Consent
 Retention Rights
 Adjustments
 Incorporation of Plan
 Applicable Law
 The Plan and Other Agreements
 2




---



##### 



RECIPIENT:
    
    
    
    CALLIDUS SOFTWARE, INC./s/ Michael Graves
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ V. Holly AlbertSignature
    
    
    
    
    
    V. Holly Albert,
SVP and General CounselMichael GravesPrint Name
    
    
    
    June 27, 2007
 3




---



##### 



Schedule 1
 CONSENT OF SPOUSE
  /s/ M M Graves
 6/27/2007
exhibit430atpc20151109vi







 1   Exhibit 4.30                                 Amendment Agreement No. 4 to the Term Storage Contract   No. 2010-04 dated 15-08-2010          Between         Antwerp Terminal and Processing Company N.V.         And         Vitol SA     





 







 2   THIS AMENDMENT AGREEMENT NO. 4 is made on this 9th day of November 2015       BETWEEN      1. Antwerp Terminal and Processing Company N.V., now known as ATPC Terminal N.V., is a company   incorporated under the laws of Belgium with a registered office at Beliweg 20, Port n° 279, B2030   Antwerp, Belgium (“the Company”); and      AND      2. Vitol SA, a private company limited by shares, incorporated and existing under the laws of   Switzerland, having its official seat in Geneva, Switzerland and its principal place of business at   Boulevard du Pont d'Arve 28, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland (“the Client”).       WHEREAS      (A) The Company and the Client are parties to a Term Storage Contract No. 2010-04 dated 15-08-2010     in connection with jet storage and handling services at the Company’s terminal (“Contract”).       (B) By virtue of the Amendment Agreement dated 2nd day of July 2014 and Amendment Agreement   No. 2 dated 28th day of April 2015 and Amendment Agreement No. 3 dated 24th day of June 2015,   the Parties agreed to amend Clause 4 (Storage Period) of the Contract;       (C) For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged,   the Company and the Client now wish to further amend the Contract in accordance with this   Amendment Agreement No. 4.        NOW THEREFORE it is agreed as follows:      1. The Company and the Client agree to extend the duration from 31 December 2015 to 31 December   2018.      2. Save to the extent as amended by this Amendment Agreement No. 4, all terms and conditions of   the Contract shall remain in full force and effect.       3. This Amendment Agreement No. 4 may be executed in counterparts.       4. Clauses 21 and 22 of the Contract shall apply mutatis mutandis to this Amendment Agreement No.   4 as if references therein to the Contract were to this Amendment Agreement No. 4.      5. Capitalised terms not otherwise defined in this Amendment Agreement No. 4 shall have the same   meaning as in the Contract.     





 







 3   IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Client and the Company have caused this Amendment Agreement No. 4 to be   executed by their duly authorized representatives, as of the date first above written.            ATPC Terminal N.V.                  /s/ Gert Quint   Name: Gert Quint   Position: Director   Date: 09 November 2015   Place: Antwerp            Vitol S.A.                     /s/ David Fransen   Name: David Fransen   Position: Managing Director   Date: 09 November 2015   Place:
EXHIBIT 32.2



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 New Century Financial Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Edward F. Gotschall, Vice Chairman and Chief Financial 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    Edward F. GotschallEdward F. Gotschall Vice Chairman and
Chief Financial Officer November 14, 2003




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to New Century and will be retained by New Century and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



The foregoing certification is being furnished with New Centurys Form 10-Q for the
period ended September 30, 2003 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of New Century,
whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7098

APRIL STUCKERS,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

UNNAMED RESPONDENT,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (5:11-hc-02193-F)

Submitted: November 29, 2012 Decided: December 13, 2012

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

April Stuckers, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

April Stuckers seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Stuckers has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny her motions for a certificate of appealability, deny 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.17


Outside Director Compensation


	
		
	Annual Board Retainer
	$70,000

	Chairman of the Board Additional Retainer
	$75,000

	Committee Chair Retainers
	 

	Audit Committee Chair
	$22,500

	Compensation Committee Chair
	$22,500

	Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee Chair
	$15,000

	Neutrality Committee Chair
	$10,000

	Committee Member Retainers (other than Chair)
	 

	Audit Committee
	$10,000

	Compensation Committee
	$10,000

	Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee
	$7,500

	Neutrality
	$5,000




 
Each non-employee director shall be granted restricted stock units, pursuant to the Plan and consistent with the Approved Policy, with respect to that number of shares of the Company’s Class A Common Stock equal to $185,000 divided by the 30-day moving average stock price of the Class A Common Stock as of the market close on the last business day of the fiscal quarter prior to the Date of Grant.
#### James S. Blydenburgh and another v. Munson S. Frost and others.

Judgment modified^ order to be settled by Justice Cullen. Opinion by Callen, J*
From: beeper1977@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:11:53 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Thomas Schill

Saint Augustine, FL 32086
August 9, 2010 

Office ofConsumer Information and Insurance Oversight 


'Qepartment ofHealth 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 

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 

PP ACA, 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 lllY opinion· that the Rule may still result in some confusion to the marketplace in its 

(!.pplic(!.tion. 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, 

does that mean a 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 

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 rteedsto 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 

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. -

Th~ you for the opportunity to comment on tbis regulation 

~ 

.. / .. /~~' .../. " ' .. ; . .. ~.~ .... '! .. " ·t. 

,; . '. I ! •. ' !,. ,. • rip' " .', " J' . . .. r. Harold B. Allen . . . ' ... 


204 West Main St. ..... .', I, 


Clinton,Iilinois'61727 ... < 


. " I '
From: Ruth Foy

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Thursday, August 04, 2011 12:00:28 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,

Ruth Foy
Fort Worth, Texas
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 NSTAR (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas J. May, Chairman, President and Chief Executive 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 to the best of my knowledge:(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 the Company.  Date: July 31, 2009By:/s/ THOMAS J. MAYThomas J. MayChairman, President andChief Executive Officer
No. 315, Misc.

#### Eastman *v.*New York.

Court of Appeals of New York. Certiorari denied.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-40305 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. JOSE BERNARDO MARQUEZ-ROA, Defendant-Appellant.
CONSOLIDATED WITH

____________________ No. 01-40360

____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. JOSE MARQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC Nos. L-00-CR-1167-ALL & L-96-CR-9-ALL

-------------------- February 21, 2002 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jose Bernardo Marquez-Roa (“Marquez”) appeals his conviction following his plea of guilty to illegal reentry into the UnitedNo. 01-40305 cons/w No. 01-40360 -2- States after deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Marquez argues that his indictment was defective under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments because it did not allege general intent. Because Marquez did not present this argument to the district court, the indictment is reviewed with “maximum liberality.” United States v. Guzman-Ocampo , 236 F.3d 233, 236 (5th Cir. 2000). Marquez’ indictment listed every statutorily required element of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, informed him of the charge, and fairly imported that his reentry was a voluntary act in view of the allegation that he had been deported and removed from the United States and was subsequently found in the United States without having obtained the consent of the Attorney General. Marquez’ indictment was statutorily and constitutionally sufficient. See id. at 239 n.13. Marquez’ conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
#### DOROTHY DORFMAN, SUBSTITUTED FOR LOUIS DORFMAN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. MT. SINAI BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Submitted October term, 1932

Decided June 10, 1933.

Before Justices Tbenchakd, Case and Beogan.

For the appellant, *Precher & Precher (Michael S. Precher,*of counsel).

For the respondent, *Michael Bohol.*

Per Curiam.

This ease presents an appeal by the defendant-appellant from a judgment recovered by the plaintiff below in the sum of $140.

The plaintiff, a shareholder in the defendant building and loan association, sued to recover this amount of $140 which she alleges was paid by her over and above the amount due to the building and loan association on a mortgage loan. It is not disputed that this amount was paid by the plaintiff but the defendant says this sum was applied by it to unpaid insurance premiums covering the plaintiff’s property. On the other hand, the husband of the plaintiff swears that he paid the insurance premiums, amounting to $140, to the president of the building and loan association which, of course, presents a fact issue.

The state of the case, agreed upon by counsel for the respective parties, comes before us in a very unsatisfactory condition. The parties, for instance, are unable to agree as to whether or not a certain question was asked (which may have *430been important in this controversy) and the notes of the trial judge do not disclose whether or not the question was asked. It does appear, however, that the defendant moved for a non-suit, which was denied, and that the court let the case go to the jury as to whether or not the president of the defendant building and loan association acted as the plaintiff’s agent o-r the defendant’s agent in applying plaintiff’s moneys- to the payment of insurance premium. The court’s ruling on these questions was in no- way excepted to and these questions therefore are not available to the appellant for the purposes of an appeal. *Klein*v. *Shryer,*106 *N. J. L.*433; 150 *Atl. Rep.*321.

The appeal is therefore dismissed, with costs.