alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001035507
<NAME>                        800-JR CIGAR, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

       
<S>                           <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                        13,799
<SECURITIES>                  18,760
<RECEIVABLES>                 4,313
<ALLOWANCES>                  78
<INVENTORY>                   38,685
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              78,829
<PP&E>                        20,033
<DEPRECIATION>                4,635
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                99,352
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         23,727
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      128
<OTHER-SE>                    64,580
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  99,352
<SALES>                       62,196
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              62,196
<CGS>                         49,632
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 56,315
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            370
<INCOME-PRETAX>               5,965
<INCOME-TAX>                  2,433
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           5,881
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  3,532
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                 .27
        


</TABLE>
From: Joy & Chuck Woodfield

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Preventive Services for Women

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 4:21:12 PM

Importance: High

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.

As Americans one of our basic tenets is separation of Church and State. Laws that govern women of childbearing age should not subject them to having to submit their lives and choices to the approval of their 

employers who have different ethnic and religious convictions. Additionally, Equality is a premise we hold dear, 

and women who cannot receive preventive care equitably because of their condition of employment (working for 

someone who does not believe in the right to choose) should be unconstitutional. 

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.

Joyce D Woodfield
#### Peter Fossett, by Guardian, Plaintiff. v. The Society for the Protection of Destitute Roman Catholic Children, Defendant.

Motion for new trial granted, with costs to abide tlm event. Opinion by

Haight, J.;

dissenting opinion by

Barker, J.
From: Janice Mastin-Kamps

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Contraception

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 11:10:36 PM

To whom it may concern,

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.

Thank you,

Janice Mastin-Kamps
From: Leigh Blankenburg

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: I oppose the Definition of Religious Employer in Health Care Rules

Date: Monday, August 08, 2011 11:46:42 PM

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

committed to preserving life. Health care 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.

JMJ,

Leigh Blankenburg

Sent from my iPhone
From: Linda Lis

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Sunday, August 07, 2011 1:20:03 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,

Linda Lis

36 Hawthorne Place

2F

Montclair, NJ 07042
From: desireedq@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:13:26 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,

Desiree Quinlan

Streamwood, IL 60107
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (2.9 MB)
 
 Kuwait Camp Arifjan deployment 420th MCB Sgt. Connie Jones unit photos
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
From: Kelly Martek

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 11:08:19 AM

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,

Kelly Martek
Bay City, Michigan
exhibit433eta20151109vit







 1   Exhibit 4.33                                 Amendment Agreement No. 2   to the Term Storage Agreement bearing number VITOLMD-ETA-2015-01      Between         Eurotank Amsterdam B.V.          And         Vitol S.A.     





 







 2   THIS AMENDMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2 is made on this 9th day of November 2015      BETWEEN      1. Eurotank Amsterdam B.V., a company incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands with a   registered office at Van Riebeeckhavenweg 9, 1041 AD, Amsterdam, 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 bearing reference number   VITOLMD-ETA-2015-01 dated 1 January 2015 (“Agreement”).       (B) By virtue of the Amendment Agreement No. 1 dated 26th day of March 2015, the Parties agreed to   amend Clause 4 (Storage Period) of the Agreement;       (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 Agreement in accordance with this   Amendment Agreement No. 2.        NOW THEREFORE it is agreed that with effect from the date of this Amendment Agreement No. 2:      1. The Company and the Client agree to extend the duration from 31 December 2015 to 31 December   2019.       2. Save to the extent as amended by this Amendment Agreement No. 2, all terms and conditions of the   Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.       3. This Amendment Agreement No. 2 may be executed in counterparts.       4. Clauses 21 and 22 of the Agreement shall apply mutatis mutandis to this Amendment Agreement   No. 2 as if references therein to the Agreement were to this Amendment Agreement No. 2.      6. Capitalised terms not otherwise defined in this Amendment Agreement No. 2 shall have the same   meaning as in the Agreement.        





 







 3   IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Client and the Company have caused this Amendment Agreement No. 2 to be   executed by their duly authorized representatives, as of the date first above written.            Eurotank Amsterdam B.V.                      /s/ Jack de Moel   Name: Jack de Moel   Position: Managing Director   Date: 09 November 2015   Place: Amsterdam   Vitol S.A.                     /s/ David Fransen   Name: David Fransen   Position: Managing Director   Date: 09 November 2015    Place: Geneva
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (3.08 MB)
 
 JOEP JAF New Jersey National Guard Task Force Spartan interoperability Soldiers Army Guard ceremony Jordan USARCENT National Guard Army National Guard ARCENT coalition ASG-J 102 CAV Jordan Border Guard Force JTC-J Joint Operational Engagement Program
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
file:///C|/..._List_29-08-2011_12-55-54-352/Document%20List%2029-08-2011%2012-55-54-352_docs/EBSA-2010-0018-DRAFT-0039.html[8/29/2011 1:20:24 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: August 29, 2011

Received: August 23, 2011

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 80eeaae6

Comments Due: September 30, 2011

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0018

Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of

Preventive Services Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0018-0002

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services under

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment

Document: EBSA-2010-0018-DRAFT-0039

Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: Thomas Kenneth Gillette

Address:

Bloomfield, NY,

General Comment

Dear Health and Human Services,

Requiring insurance companies to pay for abortion will not be acceptable to me. If my insurance

company pays for this, I will have to go to other means to pay for medical coverage.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

I, Domenic Gatto, Chief Executive Officer of Atlantic Express Transportation Corp. (the ‘‘Company’’), do hereby 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ‘‘Report’’), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, 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.

/s/ Domenic GattoDomenic Gatto
Chief Executive Officer


Date: February 13, 2008

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

---
From: Ann Proctor

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Reject exemptions for religious employers!

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 8:01:11 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. Keep

religion out of healthcare, and out of business - it has NO place there, and if it did have

a place, those "religious organizations" should NOT be tax exempt.

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.

Ann Proctor

GJ, CO
#### John Lowry, Respondent, v. John O. Spencer and another, Appellants.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted.
From: Kate Wescott

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 1:16:43 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs

Sincerely,

Kate Wescott

5290 Spooner Rd

Ashville, NY 14710