alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Jenny Fox

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Cover women"s preventive services - including contraception!

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 5:55:13 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.

--jenny
Exhibit 32.2  Certification of Principal Financial Officer  In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 (the Report) of Hamptons Luxury Homes, Inc. (the Registrant), I, Frank Dalene, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:  1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Registrant.   Dated:  May 15, 2008 /s/ Frank Dalene Frank Dalene
No. 170.

#### Finkelstein et al. *v.*New York.

*Emanuel Redfield*for petitioners.

*Frank S. Hogan, H. Richard Uviller*and *Peter J. O’Connor*for respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.
#### Jane Reilly, Executrix, etc., Respondent, v. The Mayor etc., of the City of New York, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit 99.1

 

 

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

To the Shareholders and Trustees of NSTAR:

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of NSTAR (the “Company”) and its subsidiaries as of March 31, 2006, and the related condensed consolidated statements of income and retained earnings foreach of the three-month periods ended March 31, 2006 and March 31, 2005 and the condensed consolidated statements of cash flows for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2006 and March 31, 2005.  These interim financial statements are the responsibility of theCompany’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 makinginquiries 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, the objective of which is the expression of anopinion 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 acceptedin the United States of America.

We have previously audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2005, and the related consolidated statements of income,comprehensive income, retained earnings, and of cash flows for the year then ended, management's assessment of the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005 and the effectiveness of the Company's internal controlover financial reporting as of December 31, 2005; and in our report dated February 16, 2006, we expressed unqualified opinions thereon.  The consolidated financial statements and management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting referred to above are not presented herein.  In our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2005, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the consolidated balancesheet from which it has been derived.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Boston, MassachusettsApril 28, 2006
Exhibit
32.1


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Ampal – American Israel
Corporation (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned, Yosef A. Maiman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certifies, to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec.
1350, as adopted pursuant to sec. 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, as amended; and
  (2)   The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  March 8,
2010





By:
                /s/ Yosef
      A. MaimanYosef
      A. MaimanChairman
      of the Board of Directors,
                  President
      and Chief Executive Officer
From: odbchurch@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:13:55 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,

Gary Starbuck

Memphis, TN 38112
319 P.2d 479

#### OREGON FEEDING COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jack NOLAND, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 8552.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Dec. 24, 1957.

Lawrence B. Quinn, J. Alfred May, Twin Falls, for appellant.

*445Karl Jeppesen, Boise, Gallager & Gal-lager, Ontario, Or., for respondent.

PORTER, Justice.

Appellant and respondent entered into an oral contract whereby respondent agreed to furnish certain feeds and to care for and feed in its feed lots at Ontario, Oregon, appellant’s herd of purebred cattle. Payment not having been made, respondent brought this action to recover the alleged agreed price for the feed furnished and the services rendered. Appellant answered challenging the amount of feed furnished and the price thereof. Appellant also counterclaimed, claiming damages for cattle injured and for cattle not returned. Plaintiff prayed for the sum of $2,926.18. Upon the trial of the cause the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff-respondent in the sum of $2,525.68. Judgment was rendered in accordance with the verdict; and from such judgment appellant has appealed to this court.

Appellant does not contend that the trial judge erred in ruling on the admissibility of evidence or in his instructions to the jury. The sole contention of appellant is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict and the judgment rendered thereon.

We have examined the evidence and find that there is substantial, competent, though conflicting, evidence to sustain the verdict of the jury. It would serve no useful purpose to recite herein the evidence on the several points at issue. Pleasant Valley Irrigation Co. Ltd. v. Lord, 62 Idaho 281, 111 P.2d 640.

This cause falls within the rule that the verdict of the jury supported by substantial, competent, though conflicting evidence, will not be set aside on appeal. Section 13-219, *446I.C.; Gordon v. Sunshine Mining Co., 43 Idaho 439, 252 P. 870; Cooper v. Oregon Short Line R. Co., 45 Idaho 313, 262 P. 873; Macomb v. Extension Ditch Co., 70 Idaho 202, 214 P.2d 464; Bates v. Siebrand Bros. Circus & Carnival, 71 Idaho 318, 231 P.2d 747; Chapman v. Booth, 71 Idaho 359, 232 P.2d 668; Preston v. Schrenk, 77 Idaho 481, 295 P.2d 272; Dunclick, Inc., v. Utah-Idaho Concrete Pipe Co., 77 Idaho 499, 295 P.2d 700.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs awarded to respondent.

KEETON, C. J., and TAYLOR, SMITH and McQUADE, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS

Ryder
Scott Company, L. P. hereby consents to the use of its name and to the reference of its report dated January 14, 2010, relating to proved oil and natural gas reserves and future net revenues of Continental Resources, Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 2009, in the Annual Report of Continental Resources, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statement of Continental
Resources, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-145320, effective August 10, 2007) and the Registration Statement of Continental Resources, Inc. on Form S-4 (File No. 333-162413, effective January 5, 2010).



|                             
|-----------------------------
|Very truly yours,            
|                             
|/s/ RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.
|Ryder Scott Company, L.P.    

Denver, Colorado

February 26, 2010
From: loisburlei@aol.com [mailto:loisburlei@aol.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 10:19 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: Comment on annuitization of 401-K assets. RIN 1210-AB33 

Gentlemen; 

I am writing to express opposition to any requirement that 401-K assets or IRA assets be required 

to invest in annuities. 

 

13. Should some form of lifetime income distribution option be required for defined contribution 

plans (in addition to money purchase pension plans)? If so, should that option be the default 

distribution option, and should it apply to the entire account balance? To what extent would 

such a requirement encourage or discourage plan sponsorship?

 

Annuities suffer from several serious problems: 

1. They are exposed to the ravages of inflation. 

2. They generally carry extremely high fees. 

3. They depend on the financial strength of one issuing company - and, if that company fails, to 

inadequate state guaranty funds. 

4. If the Federal government requires investors to purchase annuities, is it proposing to be the 

financial guarantor of the issuing companies? If so, this creates another huge Federal liability at 

a time when we cannot afford yet another Federal bailout plan. 

 

In contrast, a well diversified portfolio of stocks, bonds and real estate stands a much better 

likelihood of providing an adequate income stream over a retiree's life time. 

 

I am a retired Chartered Financial Analyst, and would not consider owning an annuity. 

 

Lois W. Burleigh, CFA
From: David Cox

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Monday, August 15, 2011 5:24:49 PM

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,

David Cox
Astoria, New York
SEP 2 Lu; REG JQ03G)- 7k Page 1 of 1
egSIING DIVISION
LEGAL PROCESSING DIVI NS
PUBLICATION & REGULATIO As of: September 02, 2011
BR Received: August 09, 2011

Status: Posted
PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: September 02, 2011
Tracking No. 80edc3c9
‘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-2010-0017-0141
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: Mary Mitchell

General Comment
I am opposed to this rule that defines contraceptive services as preventative medicine. Pregnancy

is not a disease. The mandate is written such that religious hospitals will not be able to opt out
based on sonscious objections. This rule does not allow Catholic

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectld=09000... 9/2/2011
** **

**Exhibit 99.1**

 

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of On StageEntertainment, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, Timothy J. Parrott, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, and Margaret Ann Freman, Senior VicePresident and 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, that to their knowledge:

                (1)           the Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended; and

                (2)           the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company as of, and for the periods covered by theReport.

 
| /s/ Timothy J. Parrott    |
|---------------------------|
| Timothy J. Parrott        |
| Chief Executive Officer   |
| August 13, 2002           |
|                      |
| /s/ Margaret Ann Freman   |
| Margaret Ann Freman       |
| Senior Vice President and |
| Chief Financial Officer   |
| August 13, 2002           |
|                      |

 

 

----
From: shannda@auburn.edu

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:34:18 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,

Dennis Shannon

Auburn, AL 36830
**Exhibit 32.1**
Certification Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350
As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
     In connection with the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Rogers Communications Inc., a corporationorganized under the laws of British Columbia (the “Company”) for the period ending December 31,2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), eachof the undersigned officers of the Company certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant 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 SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and
     2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Dated: March 15, 2005 /s/ Edward S. Rogers             Edward S. Rogers             President and Chief Executive Officer           Dated: March 15, 2005 /s/ Alan D. Horn             Alan D. Horn             Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 12, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 62553]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19734]


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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: 88 FR 60442, 
September 1, 2023.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING: 9:00 a.m. EDT, 
Friday, September 8, 2023.

CHANGES IN THE MEETING: The meeting has been canceled.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary 
of the Commission, 202-418-5964.
    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.

    Dated: September 7, 2023.
Christopher Kirkpatrick,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2023-19734 Filed 9-8-23; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P