alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 15.1



                    Report of Independent Accountants


To the Shareholders and Trustees of NSTAR:

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated
balance sheet of NSTAR and its subsidiaries as of June 30,
2001, and the related condensed consolidated statements of
income, comprehensive income, and retained earnings for each
of the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2001
and 2000 and the condensed consolidated statement of cash
flows for the six-month periods ended June 30, 2001 and
2000. These financial statements are the responsibility of
the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants.  A review of interim financial information
consists principally of applying analytical procedures to
financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible
for financial and accounting matters.  It is substantially
less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with
generally accepted auditing standards, 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
condensed 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 auditing standards
generally accepted in the United States of America, the
consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2000, and the
related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive
income, retained earnings, and cash flows for the year then
ended (not presented herein), and in our report dated
January 26, 2001 we expressed an unqualified opinion on
those consolidated financial statements.  In our opinion,
the information set forth in the accompanying condensed
consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2001, is fairly
stated in all material respects in relation to the
consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
August 10, 2001
# **Exhibit 32**

# ** **

# **CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Gevity HR, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Garry J. Welsh, as Interim Chief Executive Officer and as Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)         the Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)         theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:   August 11, 2008 |   | /s/  Garry J. Welsh              |
|------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------|
|                               |   | Garry  J. Welsh                  |
|                               |   | Interim  Chief Executive Officer |
|                               |   |                             |
|                               |   | /s/  Garry J. Welsh              |
| Dated:   August 11, 2008 |   | Garry  J. Welsh                  |
|                               |   | Chief  Financial Officer         |
|                               |   |                             |

 

----
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 18536]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07355]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

State Energy Advisory Board (STEAB)

AGENCY:  Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department 
of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open teleconference.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces a teleconference call of the State 
Energy Advisory Board (STEAB). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. 
L. 92-463; 86 Stat.770) requires that public notice of these meetings 
be announced in the Federal Register.

DATES: Thursday, April 17, 2014 from 3:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. (EDT). To 
receive the call-in number and passcode, please contact the Board's 
Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at the address or phone number listed 
below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Hughes, STEAB Designated Federal 
Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington DC 20585. 
Phone number 202-320-9703, and email at: Julie.Hughes@ee.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Purpose of the Board: To make recommendations to the Assistant 
Secretary for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 
regarding goals and objectives, programmatic and administrative 
policies, and to otherwise carry out the Board's responsibilities as 
designated in the State Energy Efficiency Programs Improvement Act of 
1990 (Pub. L. 101-440).
    Tentative Agenda: Follow-up from March's in-person live Board 
meeting, receive STEAB Task Force updates, and look at next-steps and 
action items to maintain momentum.
    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written 
statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the 
meeting. Members of the public who wish to make oral statements 
pertaining to agenda items should contact Julie Hughes at the address 
or telephone number listed above. Requests to make oral comments must 
be received five days prior to the meeting; reasonable provision will 
be made to include requested topic(s) on the agenda. The Chair of the 
Board is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will 
facilitate the orderly conduct of business.
    Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available for public 
review and copying within 60 days on the STEAB Web site at: 
www.steab.org.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on March 26, 2014.
LaTanya R. Butler,
Deputy Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-07355 Filed 4-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
No. 558.

#### Aeronautical Communications Equipment, Inc., *v.*Pierce, Executrix.

*Walter H. Free*for petitioner.

*David Riñes, Robert H. Riñes*and *Walter Humkey*for respondent.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.
DarrasLaw

BY EMAIL TO: e-ORI@dol.gov October 25, 2017

Office of Regulations and Interpretations
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Room N-5655

U.S. Department of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20210

Regarding: Claims Procedure for Plans Providing Disability Benefits Examination
RIN: 1210-AB39

We are attorneys who represent claimants and their beneficiaries in employee welfare benefit

matters. We have evaluated, litigated, and resolved many thousands of ERISA disability insurance
cases over the past 25 years. Our practice includes all states of ERISA claims issues: at the claim
level, appeals of adverse claim decisions, litigation in the district court, and at the court of appeals.

We respectfully request that the Secretary of Labor not delay the effective date of the Final ERISA
claims regulations adopted on December 19, 2016. The Department finalized these rules after an
extensive notice and comment period that yielded numerous comments from attorneys on both
sides of these issues, insurers and plans, claimants, beneficiaries, and the organizations that
represent them. Many of insurance industry comments at that time suggested that there were cost
issues associated with implementing the new rules. The Department carefully considered these
concerns in light of the evidence presented during the comment period. Indeed, some of the new
rules proposed by claimants and the organizations that represent them were not adopted. The
insurance industry also asked for more time to adjust to the new rules, a request that the
Department honored by delaying the effective date. No one was 100% happy with all of the new
regulations, but such is the nature of a fair and even-handed rule-making process.

Now, late objectors are seeking to undo the regulations after the fact, in a manner that lacks
transparency and undermines the sense of trust and fairness that should be inherent in the rule-
making process. These parties had ample opportunity to voice their concerns and to provide data
supporting their allegations prior to the adoption of the new rules — which they did. To grant them
another bite at the apple now raises questions of bias and impropriety. Further, it is likely to require
the Departments of Labor and Justice to expend substantial resources defending the litigation that is
sure to be filed to contest the violations of the rulemaking process under the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) of 1946 (5 U.S.C. §551 et seq.).

Thank you considering our comments.

Sincerely,

DarrasLaw

es

FRANK N. DARRAS, Attorney SUSAN B. GRABARSKY \\Attorhey
aE, leche GorQrey
PHILLIP S. BATHER, Attorney HEATHER GARDNER, Attorney (Washington St.)

3257 East Guasti Road Suite 300 Ontario, California 91761
telephone 909.390.3770 facsimile 909.974.2121 www.DarrasLaw.com
From: rick.cobb@astergroup.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:06:37 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,

Richard Cobb

Matthews, NC 28104
<PAGE>   1


                              ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT





The Board of Directors
Spire Corporation:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.:
2-97806, 33-4783, 33-16519, 33-29522, 33-53280 and 333-22223) on Form S-8 of
Spire Corporation of our report dated February 28, 1997, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of Spire Corporation and subsidiary as of December
31, 1996 and 1995, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
stockholders equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 1996, which report appears in the December 31, 1996
annual report on Form 10-KSB of Spire Corporation.




                                                 /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
                                                 ----------------------------
                                                  KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
March 28, 1997




                                       27
No. 220, Misc.

#### Perpiglia *v.*Banmiller, Warden.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Certiorari denied.
To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:32:16 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,

Robert James

Montgomery Village, MD 20886
From: SeeTR@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Cc: SeeTR@AOL.COM

Subject: Comment in support of HHS Secretary Sibelius"s decision regarding preventions

Date: Saturday, August 13, 2011 9:58:14 AM

To HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and whomever it may

concern,

 I join with the American Association of University

Women (AAUW) and many other across the United States 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 the 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

such 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 who may not

agree with their employers on such issues. If granted,

this larger exemption presumptively would unjustly without

due process deny access to preventive care for thousands of

women just because of where they work.

 I urge you to ensure women have access to quality

preventive care by accepting the Institute of Medicine’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious

refusal exemption provisions.

 Be well; do good work; and I look forward to your

continuing to serve the best interests of America, American

women in particular through your decisions in this case but

also their families and America generally.

 Regards and Shalom,

 Thomas Rogers
From: jack-leona@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:31:16 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,

Jack Slone

Sterling Heights, MI 48313
|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Coupon | Interest | Maturity | Callable | Survivor's Option | Price | CUSIP |   |
| 1.75%  | Semi-Annual(†††) | 6/15/2019 | No | Yes § | 100.00 | 14912HPY0 |   |
Op, ff ING) -- ou!
LEGAL PROCESSING piston / 1b C-1XO5 4 10 rou 31 2011
TION & REGUL.
PUBLICATI RANCH

Page | of 1

As of: August 31, 2011

Received: August 15, 2011

Status: Posted

PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: August 31, 2011

Tracking No. 80ce18d6

(Comments Due: September 30, 2011
Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0017
Requirement for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers to Provide Coverage of
Preventive Services under the PatientProtection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0017-0038
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services
under Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment

Document: IRS-2010-0017-0090
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: Barbara Deanne Clark-Elliott
Address:

312 Powell Ave. SW

Renton, WA, 98057-2253
Email: bce1028@aol.com
Submitter's Representative: Adam Smith
Organization: Self
Government Agency: HHS

General Comment

Please support the Doverage of Preventive Serivces under Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act to provide birth control to all women at no cost, with no copay. All employers must provide
this coverage, regardless of their claims about religious beliefs.

If they don't cover this benefit, companies/corporations must be required to provide
daycare/childcare along with 6-months of paid maternity leave for women bearing or adopting
children and/or men who are responsible for those children.

Thank you very much/

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectld=0900... 8/31/2011
II

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1385

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior, pursuant to the provisions of

the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act,

to participate in the design, planning, and construction of the Lakehaven

water reclamation project for the reclamation and reuse of water.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

AUGUST 3, 2001

Ms. CANTWELL (for herself and Mrs. MURRAY) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior, pursuant to the

provisions of the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act, to participate in the

design, planning, and construction of the Lakehaven

water reclamation project for the reclamation and reuse

of water.

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

3 SECTION 1. LAKEHAVEN WATER RECLAMATION PROJECT.

4 (a) AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary of the Interior,

5 in cooperation with the Lakehaven Utility District, Wash6 ington, may participate in the design, planning, construc-
2

S 1385 IS

1 tion of, and land acquisition for, the Lakehaven water rec2 lamation project (‘‘Project’’), Washington, to reclaim and

3 reuse wastewater (including degraded groundwater) within

4 and outside the service area of the Lakehaven Utility Dis5 trict.

6 (b) COST SHARE.—The Federal share of the cost of

7 the Project shall not exceed 25 percent of the total cost.

8 (c) LIMITATION.—Funds provided by the Secretary

9 shall not be used for the operation and maintenance of

10 the Project.

11 (d) FUNDING.—Funds appropriated pursuant to sec12 tion 1615 of the Reclamation Wastewater and Ground13 water Study and Facilities Act may be used for the Project

14 (106 Stat. 4663–4669, 43 U.S.C. 380h et seq.), as amend15 ed.

16 SEC. 2. RECLAMATION WASTEWATER AND GROUNDWATER

17 STUDY AND FACILITIES.

18 Design, planning, and construction of the Project

19 shall be in accordance with, and subject to the limitations

20 contained in, the Reclamation Wastewater and Ground21 water Study and Facilities Act (106 Stat. 4663–4669, 43

22 U.S.C. 390h et seq.), as amended.

Æ