alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 2

AUG 2 3 2010

LEGAL PRocessincpivision — DES U/L -/0

PUBLICATION & REGULA
BRANCH TIONS

As of: August 23, 2010

PUBLIC ptatuse Posted,

SUBMISSION racking No. 60b3cd20.
Comments Due: August 16, 2010)

Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0010
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Rules Relating to Status as a Grandfathered
Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Afforable Care Act

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

Document: IRS-2010-0010-0314
Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488

Submitter Information

Name: Dr. A. R. Scopelliti
Address:

Long Branch, Nj,
Submitter's Representative: Self
Organization: MCNC

General Comment

81010

Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight
Department of Heaith 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 Stacus
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 of individuals covered by
PPACA, especially as of January 1, 2014 when most of the 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.

http://fdms.erulemaking net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=..._ 8/23/2010


Page 2 of 2

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 (i.e. outpatient services) but retained the copayment level for primary care doctor visits,
does 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 of the employee population will
remain outside the PPACA as of January 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 of the
legistation,

The Rule needs to 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 outcom

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=... 8/23/2010
Exhibit 99.1   Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm  To the Shareholders of NSTAR:  We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheetof NSTAR and its subsidiaries(the Company) as of June 30, 2007, and the related consolidated statements of income, retained earnings and comprehensive income for each of the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2007 and June 30, 2006and the consolidatedstatement of cash flows for the six-monthperiods ended June 30, 2007 and June 30, 2006. These interim financial statements are the responsibility of the Companys management.  We conducted our review in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).  A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters.  It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.  Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the accompanying consolidated interim financial statements for them to be in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.  We previously audited in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2006, and the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, retained earnings, and of cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein), and in our report dated February 16, 2007 we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements (our opinion contained an explanatory paragraph stating the Company changed the manner in which it accounts for defined benefit pension and postretirement plans effective December 31, 2006).  In our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2006, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.   /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP  Boston, Massachusetts August 1, 2007
Exhibit 4.19

 

THE SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT
 TO
 THE CONTENT, BRANDING, PROMOTION AND TECHNOLOGY COOPERATION AGREEMENT

 

This Supplemental Agreement is entered into by and between:

 

Party A: Phoenix Satellite Television Holdings Limited

 

Party B: Fenghuang On-line (Beijing) Information Technology Co., Ltd.

 

WHEREAS:

 

1.             The Parties entered into the Agreement of Cooperation between Phoenix TV and Phoenix New Media on Content, Brand, Promotion and Technology (the “Cooperation Agreement”) dated November 24, 2009;

 

2.             The Parties entered into the Supplemental Agreement to the Content, Branding, Promotion and Technology Cooperation Agreement, dated March 28, 2011, to extend the term of the Cooperation Agreement to March 27, 2016 (the “Supplement”).

 

NOW THEREFORE, in the principle of equality and mutual benefits, the Parties agree as follows, through friendly negotiation:

 

1.                                      Term of the Cooperation Agreement

 

Both Party A and Party B agree to extend the term of the Cooperation Agreement and the Supplement to May 27, 2016.

 

2.                                      Anything not provided in this Second Supplement, shall be governed by the Cooperation Agreement and the Supplement.

 

3.                                      This Second Supplemental Agreement is an integral part of the Cooperation Agreement and the Supplement, and shall have equal legal effect.

 

4.                                      This Second Supplemental Agreement shall be made in duplicate, each Party holding one copy, and shall become effective once signed by and affixed with the corporate seal of each Party.

 











 

[Signature Page]

 

Party A: Phoenix Satellite Television Trademark Limited

 

Authorized Representative: (Signature) (Seal)
 Date: March 24, 2016

 

 

Party B: Fenghuang On-line (Beijing) Information Technology Co., Ltd.

 

Authorized Representative: 
 Date:

 











 

[Signature Page]

 

Party A: Phoenix Satellite Television Trademark Limited

 

Authorized Representative: 
 Date:

 

 

Party B: Fenghuang On-line (Beijing) Information Technology Co., Ltd.

 

Authorized Representative: (Signature) (Seal)
 Date: March 24, 2016
No. 652, Misc.

#### Henderson *v.*Louisiana.

*A. P. Tureaud*for petitioner.

Supreme Court of Louisiana. Certiorari denied.
ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________________________________

)

UNITED STATES SUGAR )

CORPORATION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

 v. ) Docket No. 11-1108

) (and consolidated cases)

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL )

PROTECTION AGENCY, et al., )

)

 Respondents. )

___________________________________ )

NOTICE OF FILING RESPONSE

TO REMAND OF THE RECORD

Respondents United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al., 

(collectively “EPA”) hereby gives notice of filing the attached Response to the 

remand of the record ordered by the Court in its Order of May 15, 2014, ECF No. 

1493171.

Respectfully submitted, 

SAM HIRSCH

Acting Assistant Attorney General

USCA Case #11-1108 Document #1502494 Filed: 07/14/2014 Page 1 of 3
2

/S/ Norman L. Rave, Jr.

NORMAN L. RAVE, JR. 

PERRY ROSEN

Environmental Defense Section

Environment & Natural Resources Division

United States Department of Justice

P.O. Box 7611

Washington, D.C. 20044

(202) 616-7568

July 14, 2014 Counsel for Respondents

USCA Case #11-1108 Document #1502494 Filed: 07/14/2014 Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 14th day of July, 2014, I caused a copy of the 

foregoing document to be served by the Court’s CM/ECF system on all counsel of 

record in this matter.

/S/ Norman L. Rave, Jr. 

Norman L. Rave, Jr. 

USCA Case #11-1108 Document #1502494 Filed: 07/14/2014 Page 3 of 3
USCA Case #11-1108 Document #1502494 Filed: 07/14/2014 Page 1 of 16
USCA Case #11-1108 Document #1502494 Filed: 07/14/2014 Page 2 of 16
USCA Case #11-1108 Document #1502494 Filed: 07/14/2014 Page 3 of 16
USCA Case #11-1108 Document #1502494 Filed: 07/14/2014 Page 4 of 16
USCA Case #11-1108 Document #1502494 Filed: 07/14/2014 Page 5 of 16
USCA Case #11-1108 Document #1502494 Filed: 07/14/2014 Page 6 of 16
USCA Case #11-1108 Document #1502494 Filed: 07/14/2014 Page 7 of 16
USCA Case #11-1108 Document #1502494 Filed: 07/14/2014 Page 8 of 16
USCA Case #11-1108 Document #1502494 Filed: 07/14/2014 Page 9 of 16
USCA Case #11-1108 Document #1502494 Filed: 07/14/2014 Page 10 of 16
USCA Case #11-1108 Document #1502494 Filed: 07/14/2014 Page 11 of 16
USCA Case #11-1108 Document #1502494 Filed: 07/14/2014 Page 12 of 16
USCA Case #11-1108 Document #1502494 Filed: 07/14/2014 Page 13 of 16
USCA Case #11-1108 Document #1502494 Filed: 07/14/2014 Page 14 of 16
USCA Case #11-1108 Document #1502494 Filed: 07/14/2014 Page 15 of 16
USCA Case #11-1108 Document #1502494 Filed: 07/14/2014 Page 16 of 16
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Journal Register Company (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 1, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), the Company, James W. Hall, Acting Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Julie A. Beck, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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/ James W. Hall                        James W. HallActing Chief Executive Officer

August 9, 2007

/s/ Julie A. Beck                        Julie A. BeckSenior Vice President andChief Financial Officer

August 9, 2007

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the ‘‘Exchange Act’’), or incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except as may be expressly set forth by specific reference in any such filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Journal Register Company and will be retained by Journal Register Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

34

----
exhibit453ett20151109vit







 1   Exhibit 4.53                                 Amendment No. 3 to the Term Storage Agreement   No. VITOLFO-ETT-2014-01 dated 1 October 2014          Between         Euro Tank Terminal B.V.          And      Vitol S.A.     





 







 2   THIS AMENDMENT AGREEMENT NO. 3 is made on this 9th day of November 2015      BETWEEN      1. Euro Tank Terminal B.V., a company incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands with a   registered office at PO Box 1000, 3180 AA Rozenburg, The Netherlands (“the Company”); and      AND      2. Vitol S.A., a company incorporated under the laws of Switzerland with a registered office at 28   Boulevard du Pont d’Arve 28, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland(“the Client”)      together “the Parties” and individually “the Party”.      WHEREAS      (A) The Company and Client are parties to a Term Storage Agreement No. VITOLFO-ETT-2014-01 dated 1   October 2014 (“Term Storage Agreement”).       (B) By virtue of the Amendment Agreement No. 1 dated 3rd January 2015, the Parties agreed to amend   Clause 6 (Contractual Capacity) and Clause 8 (a) (Tank Rental) of the Term Storage Agreement and   have further entered into Amendment Agreement (No. 2) dated 22 January 2015;       (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 Term Storage Agreement in accordance   with this Amendment Agreement No. 3.           NOW THEREFORE it is agreed as follows:      1. The Company and the Client agree to extend the duration from 30 September 2017 to 30 September   2019. For the avoidance of doubt, the Parties agree that the Client’s Contractual Capacity under the   Term Storage Agreement is 225,148 cbm effective from 30 September 2017.      2. Save to the extent as amended by this Amendment Agreement No. 3, all terms and conditions of the   Term Storage Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. This Amendment Agreement No. 3   may be executed in counterparts.       3. Clauses 20 and 21 of the Term Storage Agreement shall apply mutatis mutandis to this Amendment   Agreement No. 3 as if references therein to the Term Storage Agreement were to this Amendment   Agreement No. 3.      4. Capitalised terms not otherwise defined in this Amendment Agreement No. 3 have the same   meaning as in the Term Storage Agreement.        





 







 3   IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Client and the Company have caused this Amendment Agreement No. 3 to be   executed by their duly authorized representatives, as of the date first above written.            Eurotank Tank Terminal B.V.                      /s/ Jack de Moel   Name: Jack de Moel   Position: Director   Date: 09 November 2015   Place: Rotterdam   Vitol S.A.                      /s/ David Fransen   Name: David Fransen   Position: Managing Director   Date: 09 November 2015   Place: Geneva
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 22, 2021

No. 04-20-00392-CV

Sherry CAGLE n/k/a Sherry Schwartz,

Appellant

v.

Mario CUELLAR, Norma Cuellar, James Donald Cagle, and Hannah Funding LLC.,

Appellees

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-CI-01910

Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s reply brief was originally due June 7, 2021. Appellant’s first motion for 

extension of time was granting, extending the deadline for filing the reply brief to June 21, 2021. 

On June 21, 2021, appellant filed a motion requesting an additional extension of time to file the 

reply brief until July 1, 2021. After consideration, we GRANT the motion and ORDER

appellant to file her reply brief by July 1, 2021.

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of June, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
No. 218.

#### Zeh et al. *v.*Aeroglide Corporation.

*Reginald C. Smith*for petitioners.

*Harold Harper*for respondent.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Order entered March 3 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 14

- 00914

- CR

CODY JOHN HOLT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 59th Judicial District Court

Grayson County, Texas Trial Court Ca use No. 062011



### O RDER

The Court REINSTATE S the appeal.

On February 10, 2015, w e ordered the trial court to make findings of fact and conclusions

of law regarding appellant’s motion to suppress his statement. We also ordered court reporter
Cindy Bardwell to either file the reporter’s record of the April 1, 2014 proceedings or written
verification that the proceedings conducted in chambers were not recorded. We have received a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s findings of fact and co nclusions of law
and a letter from Ms. Bardwell saying the April 1, 2014 in chambers proceedings were not

record ed

. The State’s brief is due within thirty days of the date of this order.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic trans mission, to
counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

November 12, 2010 

d1109 

Order 

 

November 12, 2010 

141998 & (21)(22) 

MONICA D. CAPELLI, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 141998 

 COA: 300168 

Macomb CC: 2004-001403-DM 

ANDREW M. CAPELLI, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_______________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the October 19, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is 

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented 

should be reviewed by this Court. The motion for stay is DENIED.
From: Robert

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Preventive Health Care for Women

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 8:14:43 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.

 The Rev. Dr. Robert E. Koenig
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan



### December 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 

### 132253 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 132253 COA: 268922 Hillsdale CC: 00-135878 DAVID REEVES VAN AUKER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 28, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

p1218 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 29, 2006

Clerk