alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Datema, Thea

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Public Comment

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 8:04:18 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.

Thea Datema
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**697 CAF 12-01583**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CARNI, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF JOHNATHAN B.M., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. -------------------------------- MEMORANDUM AND ORDER STEUBEN COUNTY ATTORNEY, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

WENDY S. SISSON, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, GENESEO, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

ALAN P. REED, COUNTY ATTORNEY, BATH, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Steuben County (Peter C. Bradstreet, J.), entered August 2, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3. The order, among other things, placed respondent in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of Steuben County for a period of one year.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: On appeal from an order of disposition placing him in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of Steuben County for a period of one year, respondent contends that his admission to acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of forcible touching was defective because Family Court failed to comply with Family Court Act § 321.3 (1). We agree. That section prohibits a court from consenting to the entry of an admission unless it has ascertained, through an allocution of the respondent and his or her parent, that respondent is aware of, inter alia, “ ‘all possible dispositional alternatives’ ” ( Matter of Sean R.P. , 24 AD3d 1200, 1201, lv denied6 NY3d 711). “ ‘The statute’s requirements . . . are mandatory and nonwaivable,’ ” and preservation therefore is not required ( id. ). Here, respondent’s admission was defective inasmuch as “the court failed to ascertain that respondent and his parents were aware of ‘all possible dispositional alternatives’ ” ( id. ), such as the possibilities of a conditional discharge or an extension of placement ( see Matter of Melvin A. , 216 AD2d 227, 227-228 ; see also Matter of Andrew J.S. , 48 AD3d 1224, 1225; Matter of Franklin M. , 11 AD3d 469, 469-470; Matter of Joseph P. , 229 AD2d 318, 318; cf. Matter of Daquan BB. , 83 AD3d 1281, 1282-1283; Matter of Eric CC. , 298 AD2d 632, 633). “Because the period of respondent’s placement has expired, the petition must be dismissed” ( Sean R.P. , 24 AD3d at 1201; see Matter of Alex Z. , 82 AD3d 995, 996 ; cf. Matter of Dakota L.K. , 70**-2- 697 CAF 12-01583** 

AD3d 1334, 1335; Matter of Tyler D. , 64 AD3d 1243, 1243; Franklin M.
, 11 AD3d at 470).

In view of our determination, we do not address respondent’s remaining contentions concerning the factual sufficiency of the admission or the disposition.

Entered: June 12, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MIGUEL MASSARI, Individually and § on Behalf of All Similarly Situated § No. 504, 2019 Individuals, § § Plaintiff-Appellant, § § Court Below—Court of Chancery v. § of the State of Delaware § DANIEL MEYERS, SETH GELBER, § C. A. No. 2019-0017 NANCY BEKAVAC, PETER § DROTCH, THOMAS EDDY, § WILLIAM D. HANSEN, JOHN § CARTER RISLEY, FP RESOURCES § USA INC., and FP RESOURCES § ACQUISITION CORP., § § Defendants-Respondents, §

Submitted: May 13, 2020 Decided: May 14, 2020

Before SEITZ , Chief Justice; VAUGHN , and TRAYNOR , Justices.

ORDER

This 14 th day of May, 2020, after careful cons ideration of the parties’ briefs

and the record on appeal, we find it evident that the final judgme nt of the Court of

Chancery should be affirmed on the basis of and the reasons stated in its October 29,

2019 transcript ruling.2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of

Chancery is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.
Chief Justice
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

      The undersigned, Michael C. Anderson, is the Chief Financial Officer of
Wayne Savings Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company").

      This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the
Company of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June
30, 2003 (the "Report").

      By execution of this statement, I certify that:

            C)    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
                  U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and

            D)    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods
                  covered by the Report.

This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that
this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended that this
statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.


August 14, 2003                                   /s/ Michael C. Anderson
---------------                                   ------------------------------
Dated                                             Michael C. Anderson


                                       24
From: David Gustafson

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Please enact the free contraception coverage without religious encumberances.

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 11:43:44 PM

Thanks,

David Gustafson

431 Adena Drive

The Plains, OH 45780

H - 740-797-2996

C - 740-541-6740

dgustafs@columbus.rr.com
## S IXTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 6D2 3

- 2095 Lower Tribunal No. 20 18

- CA

- 012800

- O

_____________________________ L UCIANO S UTERA S ARDO , Appellant ,

v. O RANGE C OUNTY C ONVENTION C ENTER , O RANGE C OUNTY B OARD OF C OMMISSIONERS , and O RANGE C OUNTY , Appellee s

.

_____________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County

. Jeffrey L. Ashton, Judge. Ap ril 2, 202 4

PER CURIAM

. AFFIRMED

. TRAVER , C

. J. , and STARGEL and WOZNIAK , JJ., c oncur.

Paul G. Finizio, of The Finizio Law Group , Fort Lauderdale , for Appellant. Jessica C. Conner, of Dean, Ringers, Morgan & Lawton, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee, Orange County Board of County Commissioners

. No Appearan ce for Appellees, Orange County Convention Center and Orange County.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
#### Smith Brothers, Publishers, Inc., Appellant, *v.*Oliver J. Moussette, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

January, 1912.)

Contracts — Contract induced by the other’s fraud — Refusal to perform.

The innocent party to a contract induced by the other’s fraud cannot, "after discovery df the fraud, sit back and accept the benefit of the contract and refuse to perform it on his part.

Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of ithe Municipal Court of- the city of Kew York, borough of Manhattan, first district, rendered in favor of the defendant.

Hugart F. Kormán, for appellant.

Alexander S. Bacon (Charles Podsenick, of counsel), for respondent.

Lehman, J.

The defendant agreed in a written contract,, made in August, 1908, to pay for advertising to be inserted in a trade circular issued by the plaintiff. The contract has been fully performed by the plaintiff, but the defendant seeks *122to avoid payment on the ground that he was induced to sign the contract by the fraud of plaintiff's solicitor, who represented that the trade circular has a circulation of twenty thousand a month.

Fraud does not make a contract void but gives the innocent party the right to avoid the contract if he desires. The innocent party cannot, however, after discovery of the fraud, sit back and accept the benefit of the contract. In this case-it does not appear when the defendant discovered the alleged fraud,- but it- does appear that until suit was begun he never claimed that the contract was induced by fraudulent repre: sentations. It was shown that, even in the preceding month, the defendant had in writing admitted the validity of the contract. Without clear evidence as to the time the defendant discovered the fraud, it would appear that his claim of fraud was merely a method of repudiating a contract after he had received its full benefit.

Judgment should be reversed and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. •

Seabury and "Page, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event.
EX-4.18



 Exhibit 4.18 

Shares Subscription Agreement 
 (This
Agreement is entered into between the following parties on January 30, 2016 in Beijing) 
 Issuer: China Tower Corporation Limited (“China
Tower”) 
 Subscriber: China Mobile Group Henan Co., Ltd. 

Whereas the issuer and the subscriber have signed the Transaction Agreement of the Existing Telecommunication Tower and related Assets by Issuance of
Shares and Payment of Cash on October 14, 2015. Based on the above agreement and the specific circumstances of delivery of towers and related assets, the issuer has determined to issue a total of 119,344,615,024 shares at a par value of RMB1
per share. 
  

	1.	Subscription Price 

 RMB1 per share. 

 

	2.	Subscription Amount and Quantity 

 The subscriber confirms to pay RMB7,193,824,937 to subscribe
for 7,193,824,937 shares. 
  

	3.	Subscription Method 

 The subscriber agrees to subscribe for the shares issued by investing with
assets. 
  

	4.	Payment Method 

 The subscriber has completed the actual payment of contribution before
December 31, 2015. 
  

	5.	Shareholders’ Rights and Obligations 

 The both parties confirm that the subscriber shall
become the owner of shares subscribed for in this transaction from the effective date of this Agreement, and enjoy its shareholder rights and bear the corresponding obligations for such shares. The both parties agree that the issuer shall complete
the change to register of shareholders, revision of Articles of Association and change to industrial and commercial registration within 30 days after signing this Shares Subscription Agreement. 

 

	6.	Entry into Force and Counterparts 

 This Agreement shall enter into force on December 31,
2015. This agreement is executed in six counterparts, each party holding two copies, and the rest shall be submitted for examination and approval/record filing. 

(Reminder of this page intentionally left blank) 








	
	Issuer: China Tower Corporation Limited (chop)
	Legal representative or authorized representative
	
	 /s/ GAO Chunlei

	
	Subscriber: China Mobile Group Henan Co., Ltd.
	Legal representative or authorized representative
	
	 /s/ WEI Ming
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1424 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1424

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide permanent 
        authority for the admission of ``S'' visa nonimmigrants.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT AUTHORITY FOR ADMISSION OF ``S'' VISA 
              NONIMMIGRANTS.

    Section 214(k) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1184(k)) is amended--
            (1) by striking (2);
            (2) by redesignating paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) as 
        paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), respectively; and
            (3) in paragraph (4)(E) (as redesignated), by striking 
        ``paragraph (4)'' and inserting ``paragraph (3)''.

            Passed the Senate September 13, 2001.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
107th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1424

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide permanent 
        authority for the admission of ``S'' visa nonimmigrants.
```
Exhibit 32.1

     Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

         In connection  with the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB (the "Report")
of INVU, Inc. (the  "Company") for the quarterly  period ended April 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof, I certify
that:

         (1)      The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


Date:    September 11, 2003                    By: /s/ David Morgan
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  David Morgan, President &
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
                                                  (Principal Executive Officer)


Date:    September 11, 2003                    By: /s/ John Agostini
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  John Agostini, Vice President-
                                                  Chief Financial Officer &
                                                  Secretary
                                                  (Principal Financial Officer)


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to INVU, Inc. and will be maintained by INVU, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 359, Misc.

#### Odell *v.*Burke, Warden.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*John W. Reynolds,*Attorney General of Wisconsin, and *William A. Platz,*Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
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 (10.34 MB)
 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
#### Louis D. Smith, Appellant, *v.*William F. Dugan et al., Appellants, and George D. Smith et al., Respondents.

(Submitted April 29, 1912;

decided May 7, 1912.)

Motion to amend remittitur denied, without costs. (See 205 N. Y. 556.)
From: sylviaurien@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:08:24 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.

STOP THIS MADNESS!!!

Sincerely,

Sylvia Urien

Fresno, CA 93711
From: Lavonda Forbes

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Contraceptive Services should be available to all.

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 7:26:19 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.

The same groups that are against abortion want to deny contraceptive services - CRAZY!!!!

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.

Lavonda Wilks Forbes
From: mcdrmbldr@gusseology.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:44:21 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,

Angelique McDowall

Webster, FL 33597