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

June 24, 1911.

#### Drew *v.*King *& a.*

A receiptor for attached personalty is discharged of liability by delivering the identical property on demand, in as good condition as when he received it, although its value is less than that stated in the receipt.

Trover, for a Reo touring car taken by the plaintiff, who is sheriff of the county, on a writ against Alfred Lauziere, and receipted for by the defendants on August 7, 1908. Trial by the court. Transferred from the December term, 1910, of the superior court by *Pike,*J., on the plaintiff’s exception to an order of nonsuit.

The material part of the receipt signed by the defendants is as follows: “Received of Holman A. Drew, sheriff, for safe keeping, . . . one Reo touring car, all of the value of one thousand dollars, and which I agree to deliver to him or any other proper officer on demand, in good order and condition as the same are now in, free of all expense or charge for keeping; hereby waiving demand upon this receipt (within thirty days after judgment), as is by law prescribed.”

February 26, 1910, the plaintiff demanded of the defendants “one Reo touring car of the value of one thousand dollars.” The defendants were ready and willing to deliver the identical car for which they receipted, but the plaintiff declined to receive it as it was not worth one thousand dollars. At the date of the demand the car was in the same condition as when received from the plaintiff, but was worth only $177.50. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants, having described the car in the receipt as of the value of one thousand dollars, were obliged to deliver to him a car of that value; and that if the car receipted for was worth less than a thousand dollars, its delivery in as good condition as when received from the sheriff was not a fulfilment of their agreement.

*Herbert I. Goss*(by brief and orally), for the plaintiff.

*Rich & Marble*and *Sullivan & Daley,*for the defendants.

Bingham, J.

By the express terms of the contract of bailment, the defendants agreed that they had received for safe keeping a Reo touring car of the value of one thousand dollars, and that they *185would return the same to the plaintiff upon demand, in as good condition as the same was then in. The case discloses no facts from which it could be concluded that they failed to comply with the terms of the contract. On the contrary, it appears that when the property was demanded they offered to return the car in as good condition as when received, and that the plaintiff declined to accept it. This was a compliance with, and not a breach of, the contract. Had they failed to comply with the demand, without legal excuse, they would have rendered themselves liable for the agreed value of the car, but in this they were not wanting. *Whittredge*v. *Maxam,*68 N. H. 323, 324; *Healey*v. *Hutchinson,*66 N. H. 316, 318; *Scott*v. *Whittemore,*27 N. H. 309. The nonsuit was properly ordered.

*Exception overruled.*

All concurred.
From: stenbrad@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:13:56 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,

Brad Stenberg

Sierra Madre, CA 91024
E

C

/R Incorporated Providing Environmental Technical Support Since 1989

1

MEMORANDUM 

TO: Bruce Moore, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/FIG

FROM: David Hendricks, EC/R, Inc.

DATE: December 19, 2014

SUBJECT: Summary of the September 25, 2014, Meeting with the American Petroleum 

Institute (API) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to Discuss the 

Proposed Reconsideration of Additional Provisions of the Crude Oil and Natural 

Gas Production, Transmission and Distribution NSPS

I. INTRODUCTION

The API requested this meeting with the EPA to discuss the comments API submitted on the 

proposed amendments to the Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production, Transmission and 

Distribution NSPS (40 CFR Part 60, subpart OOOO). This meeting summary will be available 

in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505). The proposed rule 

was published in the Federal Register on July 17, 2014 (79 FR 41752). 

II. ATTENDEES

The following is a list of participants in the meeting.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

David Cozzie

Bruce Moore

Chris Frantz

Matthew Witosky

API and Member Organizations

Jenny Yang, ConocoPhillips

Matt Todd, API

John Wagner, API

Becky Keogh, BHP Billiton

Grover Campbell, Devon Energy

Jim Cooper, Chesapeake Energy

Manish Singh, Oxy

Jeff Adams, BP
2

Angela Zivkovich, Anadarko Petroleum

Tom Monahan, XTO

Jason Zapalac, Anadarko Petroleum

Amanda San Miguel, Marathon Oil

Kenyatta Miles, Shell

Jim Sewell, Shell

Shankar Ananthakrishna, Chevron

EC/R Incorporated

David Hendricks (by phone)

III. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION

Bruce Moore opened the meeting by stating that the proposed rule is currently in the postproposal period and the EPA can answer clarifying questions from the group, but cannot provide 

any responses to comments on the proposed rules. 

The API discussed each of the comments they submitted to the EPA on the proposal and further 

clarified their position. The topics discussed include the following:

 Storage vessel applicability issues related to §60.5365

 Clarification of well completion and production related to §60.5375

 Clarification of the standards applicable to new, modified and reconstructed storage 

vessels related to §60.5395

 Exceptions to the equipment leak standards under §60.5401

 Clarification of when control devices must be operational under §§60.5412(d)(3) and 

60.5417(h)(1)(i)

 Definition of responsible official under §60.5430

 Definition of low pressure gas well under §60.5430

 Use of LEL meters to determine when to operate a separator

 The point at which the production stage begins

 Suitability of electronic spark ignition for combustion devices

 Miscellaneous technical corrections

The EPA thanked the attendees for providing this information and stated that they will review 

the submitted comments to respond to these issues.
From: Jessica Guerrero

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Friday, August 05, 2011 12:15:30 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,

Jessica Guerrero

3802 S. Mittman

San Antonio, TX 78223
From: lionswing@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:49:06 AM

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,

Henry Battle

Mesquite, TX 75181
From: Penelope LePome

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Contraception under Health Care Law

Date: Saturday, August 20, 2011 2:22:03 AM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept the

recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as they 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.

AAUW believes that "religious refusal" exemptions unjustly deny women access to contraceptive

services. The employer 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.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances (NUREG-0750)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Preface

Download complete documents

*This page includes links to files in non-HTML format. See Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools for more information.*

## Publication Information

**Prepared by:**Office of AdministrationU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Preface

The hardbound edition of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances is a final compilation of the monthly issuances. It includes all of the legal precedents for the agency within a six-month period. Any opinions, decisions, denials, memoranda and orders of the Commission inadvertently omitted from the monthly softbounds and any corrections submitted by the NRC legal staff to the printed softbound issuances are contained in the hardbound edition. Cross references in the text and indexes are to the NRCI page numbers which are the same as the page numbers in this publication.

Issuances are referred to as follows: Commission—CLI, Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards—LBP, Administrative Law Judges—ALJ, Directors' Decisions—DD, and Decisions on Petitions for Rulemaking—DPRM.

The summaries and headnotes preceding the opinions reported herein are not to be deemed a part of those opinions or to have any independent legal significance.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, June 25, 2024
From: mark.outson@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment on HHS: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:11:45 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,

Mark Outson

, 68832-2101
No. 115, Misc.

#### Graves *v.*United States.

*T. Emmett McKenzie*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney Gen-*

*eral Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg*and *J. F. Bishop*for the United States.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>   0000734380 
<NAME> FDS95
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          19,993
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,138
<ALLOWANCES>                                       825
<INVENTORY>                                      1,795
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,930
<PP&E>                                         298,829
<DEPRECIATION>                                  46,708
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 308,792
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,092
<BONDS>                                        110,177
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           211
<OTHER-SE>                                     162,888
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   308,792
<SALES>                                        192,538
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               192,958
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  155,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,106
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 29,453
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,707
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             18,745
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,745
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .87

        

</TABLE>
From: jesuslovesyou.dewlen@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:22:01 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,

Wendy Dewlen

Houston, TX 77092
From: Ed Perry

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Access to Preventive Care and Contraception

Date: Friday, August 12, 2011 10:03:26 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 3religious employers.2 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 3religious refusal2 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 IOM1s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal

exemption provisions.
JOHN HANCOCK FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.


                                                                    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

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of John Hancock Financial
Services, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:

      (1) the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2003, (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
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 as of and for the periods presented in the Report.


Dated: March 5, 2004                      /s/ THOMAS E. MOLONEY
                                          ---------------------
                                   Name:  Thomas E. Moloney
                                   Title: Senior Executive Vice President and
                                          Chief Financial Officer

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to John Hancock Financial Services, Inc. and will be retained by
John Hancock Financial Services, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

      It is intended that this Exhibit be treated as, and deemed to be,
"accompanying" this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and not "filed" as part of the
report.