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

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1332

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude certain severance

payment amounts from income.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

AUGUST 2, 2001

Mr. TORRICELLI introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude

certain severance payment amounts from income.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. EXCLUSION FROM INCOME OF SEVERANCE

4 PAYMENT AMOUNTS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Part III of subchapter B of chap6 ter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to

7 items specifically excluded from gross income) is amended

8 by redesignating section 139 as section 140 and by insert9 ing after section 138 the following:
2

S 1332 IS

1 ‘‘SEC. 139. SEVERANCE PAYMENTS.

2 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In the case of an individual,

3 gross income shall not include any qualified severance pay4 ment.

5 ‘‘(b) LIMITATION.—The amount to which the exclu6 sion under subsection (a) applies shall not exceed $5,000

7 with respect to any separation from employment.

8 ‘‘(c) QUALIFIED SEVERANCE PAYMENT.—For pur9 poses of this section—

10 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘qualified sever11 ance payment’ means any payment received by an

12 individual if—

13 ‘‘(A) such payment was paid by such indi14 vidual’s employer on account of such individ15 ual’s separation from employment,

16 ‘‘(B) such separation was in connection

17 with a reduction in the work force of the em18 ployer, and

19 ‘‘(C) such individual does not attain em20 ployment within 6 months of the date of such

21 separation in which the amount of compensa22 tion is equal to or greater than 95 percent of

23 the amount of compensation for the employ24 ment that is related to such payment.

25 ‘‘(2) LIMITATION.—Such term shall not include

26 any payment received by an individual if the aggre-
3

S 1332 IS

1 gate payments received with respect to the separa2 tion from employment exceed $125,000.’’.

3 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

4 for part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal

5 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking the item

6 relating to section 139 and inserting the following:

‘‘Sec. 139. Severance payments.

‘‘Sec. 140. Cross references to other Acts.’’.

7 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

8 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

9 December 31, 2001.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6150

DAVID EDWARD CRAWLEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DAN A. BRAXTON; ASSISTANT WARDEN ARMENTROUT;

LIEUTENANT HONAKER; B. EDMOND, Hearing

Officer; G. BAYES, QMHP; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER

HAMPTON; W. WOODS, Correctional Officer; W.

SYKES, Correctional Officer; S. DEEL,

Correctional Officer,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District

Judge. (CA-02-1057-7)

Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 22, 2003

Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Edward Crawley, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

David Edward Crawley appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Crawley

v. Braxton, No. CA-02-1057-7 (W.D. Va. Jan. 8, 2003). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
From: pdavis@cpdlaw.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:02:08 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,

Paul Davis

Huntsville, AL 35802
Grafe, Jerome (DEP) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject 

Carta Ceruzzi [ceruzzi@gmail.com] 

Monday, September 24, 2012 10:20 AM 

Grafe, Jerome (DEP); Fichter, Katherine (DOT) 

Blue line extension plans 

Dear Commissioner Kimmell, 

Please support the fina l design and construction of the Red-Blue Connector between Bowdoin 

and Charles Street stations in Boston. One of the main reasons I chose to buy a house in East 

Boston was the public transit connectivity, and I understood that the plans to connect the 

Red and Blue lines were real and linked to mitigation agreements in place. 

To take this project off the table after the Big Dig is completed is a bait and switch. Blue 

and Red line riders deserve better, as do the residents of East Boston who have to put up 

with the traffi c racing through our neighborhood every day. Each morning I walk along 

Bennington Street from my house to the Wood Island station and see the cars backed up 

sometimes for blocks waiting to enter 1A. This is a residential street being exposed to the 

exhaust and noise of thousands of idling cars. Some of these commuters should be taking the 

T, and completing the connection wil l be one more reason for them to do so. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

Carla Ceruzzi 

Coleridge Street, East Boston 

l
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          21,936
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              85
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                54,860
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     30,446
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           5,591
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             5,650
<LOANS>                                        265,903
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,444
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 436,611
<DEPOSITS>                                     377,500
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,387
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,041
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,055
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 436,611
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  6,897
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  493
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   524
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 7,914
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,622
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,636
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,278
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  4,858
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,206
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,206
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       716
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    6.13
<LOANS-NON>                                        132
<LOANS-PAST>                                        57
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  2,040
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,590
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      166
<RECOVERIES>                                        20
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,444
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,444
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            640
        

</TABLE>
----

----

----

|                      |   | 2008 |   |   | 2007   |   |   | CHANGE |
|---------------------------|--------|------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| Revenues                  |   | $    | 774    |   |   | $      | 758    |   |   |   | 2 | %  |
| Profit      Before Tax    |   | $    | 156    |   |   | $      | 187    |   |   |   | (17 | %) |
| Profit      After Tax     |   | $    | 118    |   |   | $      | 133    |   |   |   | (11 | %) |
| New      Retail Financing |   | $    | 4,380  |   |   | $      | 3,577  |   |   |   | 22 | %  |
| Total      Assets         |   | $    | 32,735 |   |   | $      | 28,150 |   |   |   | 16 | %  |

|                      |   | 2008 |   |   | 2007   |   |   | CHANGE |
|---------------------------|--------|------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| Revenues                  |   | $    | 2,338  |   |   | $      | 2,218  |   |   |   | 5 | %  |
| Profit      Before Tax    |   | $    | 515    |   |   | $      | 556    |   |   |   | (7 | %) |
| Profit      After Tax     |   | $    | 372    |   |   | $      | 381    |   |   |   | (2 | %) |
| New      Retail Financing |   | $    | 12,451 |   |   | $      | 9,974  |   |   |   | 25 | %  |

----
From: drjwhite@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:26:03 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,

John White

Bayonne, NJ 07002
CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

POWERNOTES (SM)

With Maturities of 9 months or more from Date of Issue

 

Registration No.  333-59540

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (3)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO.  192				Trade Date: 06/20/02
(To Prospectus Supplement & Prospectus dated

  June 1, 2001)							Issue Date:  06/25/02
The Date of this Pricing Supplement June 24, 2002
SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION OR REPAYMENT

  CUSIP									Date and terms of redemption or

     or	Stated				             Interest			repayment (including any

Common	Interest		  Price to	 Discounts &         Payment	Survivors		applicable regular or special

  Code	Rate (1)	Maturity	Public (2)	Commissions       Frequency	  Option	Yes/No	record dates)

14911QHZ7   3.20%	06/15/04	     100%	       0.50%              Semi-Annually	     YES	    NO	

Principal						1st Payment	Day	

Amount		Proceeds		Dealer		      Date		Count

$2,793,000.00	$2,779,035.00	ABN AMRO Inc.	  12/15/02		30/360	
 

Original Issue Discount Note:					Total Amount of OID:

____  Yes	  X   No						N/A

 

 
- The interest rates on the PowerNotes (SM) may be changed by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation from time to time, but any such change will not affect the interest rate on any PowerNotes (SM) offered prior to the effective date of the change.   Prior to the date of this Pricing Supplement, $628.772 mm principal amount of the PowerNotes (SM) were sold at interest rates then in effect.  Subsequent offerings of PowerNotes (SM) will be made under a Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated June 1, 2001.
Additionally, the total principal amount of PowerNotes(SM) offered by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation pursuant to its Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated June 1, 2001 has been increased from $500.0mm to $750.0mm.  $250.0mm principal amount of debt securities registered pursuant to Registration Statement No. 333-59540 originally offered by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation pursuant to its Prospectus Supplement dated June 15, 2001 and related Prospectus dated May 25, 2001 are being offered as PowerNotes(SM) by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation pursuant to its Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated June 1, 2001.
- Expressed as a percentage of aggregate principal amount.  Actual Price to Public may be less, and will be determined by prevailing market prices at the time of purchase as set forth in the confirmation sheet.
From: Julie Ternes

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Date: Saturday, August 20, 2011 10:18:27 AM

The current definition of religious employer does not provide true conscience protection for

those committed to preserving life. Healthcare plans should not be forced to violate the

moral and religious convictions of providers or employees in order to participate in the

health care system. Requiring such an unacceptable demand threatens both universal

access to health care and religious freedom of conscience.

Please make the necessary changes to provide for true conscience protection.
Exhibit 32.1

# SECTION 906
CERTIFICATIONS

Each of the undersigned hereby
certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Providian Financial Corporation (the
Company), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|1. |  | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended
                    September 30, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
                    Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
                    78o(d)); and
|-- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|2. |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: November 14, 2003

| | /s/ Joseph W. SaundersJoseph W. Saunders
President and Chief Executive Officer
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
| | /s/ Anthony F.VuotoAnthony F. Vuoto
Chief Financial Officer
Baby Safety Checklist (Front)
From: Kalamara Hatake

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Petition

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:17:03 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.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of AmNet Mortgage, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, JudithA. Berry, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 (“Section 906”), that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)           The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

 

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

 

 
| May 17, 2004 |                    |
|--------------|-------------------------|
|         |                    |
|         | /s/ Judith A. Berry     |   |
|         | Judith A. Berry         |
|         | Chief Financial Officer |

 

*A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by theCompany and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.*

 

----
#### Guy W. Bailey *v.*Frank C. Saunders.

February Term, 1916.

Present: Munson, C. J., Watson, Haselton, Powers, and Taylor, JJ.

Opinion filed October 10, 1916.

*Principal and Agent*— Authority *of Agent*— Ratification—Harm*less Error*— Agent *for Foreign Principal.*

This case is governed by the decision in *Whalen v. Saunclers,*ante, p. 393.

General Assumpsit, with a count in special assumpsit to recover money paid to the defendant by the plaintiff, as the purchase price of certain shares of stock in the Improved Shuttle Company of Canada, Limited, a Canadian corporation. Plea, the general issue. Trial by court at the March Term, 1915, Chittenden County, *Slack, J.,*presiding. Judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant excepted.

*Arch McGoun,*K. C., of the Bar of Montreal and *Sherman R. Moulton*for the defendant.

*Martin & Bailey*for the plaintiff.

Taylor, J.

The money for the recovery of which this action is brought was paid to defendant for certain shares of stock of the Improved Shuttle Company of Canada, a corporation. The case was heard with *Whalen*v. *Saunders,*90 Vt. 393, 98 Atl. 901, on a separate bill of exceptions, but the questions presented are the same in both cases. Defendant’s exceptions are overruled for the reasons given in our opinion in that case.

*Judgment affirmed.*
No. 184.

#### Battles *v.*Goldberg, Secretary of Labor.

*Stanford Shmukler*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg*and *Theodore George Gilinsky*for respondent.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 23

- 00315

- CV

P ATRICK J OHNSON

- O LIVER

, Appellant

V

.

L

ANTANA C OMMUNITY A SSOCIATION

, I NC

. , Appellee §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 431st D is trict

Court

of Denton County ( 22

- 8790

- 431 )

July 3, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Jus tice

Bi rdwell

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Wade Birdwell

Justice Wad e Birdwell
TS-AMID30

Attachment #7

Pt. 2, Sec. B, 1a 

Processing Information on the New Chemical Substances at Industrial Sites 

Controlled by Others 
Attachment #7

Manufacturing and Processing Information on the New Chemical Substances at 

Industrial Sites Controlled by Others

TS-AMID30