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



                    Report of Independent Accountants


To the Shareholders and Trustees of NSTAR:

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated
balance sheet of NSTAR and its subsidiaries as of March 31,
2001, and the related condensed consolidated statements of
income, comprehensive income, retained earnings and cash
flows for each of the three-month periods ended March 31,
2001 and 2000. These financial statements are the
responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants.  A review of interim financial information
consists principally of applying analytical procedures to
financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible
for financial and accounting matters.  It is substantially
less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with
generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of
which is the expression of an opinion regarding the
financial statements taken as a whole.  Accordingly, we do
not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material
modifications that should be made to the accompanying
condensed consolidated interim financial statements for them
to be in conformity with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States of America.

We previously audited in accordance with auditing standards
generally accepted in the United States of America, the
consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2000, and the
related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive
income, retained earnings, and cash flows for the year then
ended (not presented herein), and in our report dated
January 26, 2001 we expressed an unqualified opinion on
those consolidated financial statements.  In our opinion,
the information set forth in the accompanying condensed
consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2001, is fairly
stated in all material respects in relation to the
consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
May 14, 2001
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 13, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                                          1000

<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                              DEC-26-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                                 MAR-22-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                                   JUN-13-2000
<CASH>                                                               2,181
<SECURITIES>                                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                                            918
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                     3,749
<PP&E>                                                              30,839
<DEPRECIATION>                                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                      39,512
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                4,689
<BONDS>                                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                                              0
<COMMON>                                                                94
<OTHER-SE>                                                          22,744
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                        39,512
<SALES>                                                             12,006
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                    12,006
<CGS>                                                                3,159
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                       10,329
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                       960
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                     242
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                        468
<INCOME-TAX>                                                           173
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                    295
<DISCONTINUED>                                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                                           295
<EPS-BASIC>                                                           0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                         0.03



</TABLE>
From: marks@frognet.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:57:11 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,

mark simmons

Jackson, OH 45640
An official website of the United States government                

----

end of header

# Foreign Trade

Skip top of page navigation

###### You are here: Census.gov › Business & Industry ›Foreign Trade › U.S. International Trade Data

                - Main
                - About
                - Data
                - Outreach
                - AES
                - Regulations
                - Reference
                - Definitions
                - Schedule B
                - FAQs

### More DATA

                          - Trade Highlights
                          - Balance by Partner Country
                          - Country/Product Trade
                          - State/Metropolitan Data
                          - Historical Series
                          - Notices and Corrections
                          - Related Party Trade
                          - Press Releases
                          - Data Products

### Important Links

                          - Global Reach Blog
                          - Newsletters
                          - ACE AESDirect
                          Related Sites- Business and Industry
- Briefing Room
- North American Industry                Classification System (NAICS)
Economic Indicator Database
                          Geographic Concordance - Annual SubscriptionDownload a file- Click on the appropriate month below to download your file.
-  If you are having technical difficulties or need help, feel free to email us at ftd.data.dissemination@census.gov or call 301-763-2311 for immediate assistance.
- Record	      layouts of the files are  available	      online .
Select Statistical Month:- 2010 Geographic Concordance  (Available on March 4, 2010)

                          Export Training
Collection of videos to enhance export training.

Spanish Language Webinars 2020-2021 (Seminarios en Línea en Español 2020-2021)
2017 And Prior Year Webinars Archive.
Upcoming Outreach Activities
Upcoming Outreach Activities
Contact Us
				Contact the International Trade Macro Analysis Branch: Email us! or use our feedback form!

                  Call us: (301)763-2311 or 1-800-549-0595 option 4			  
CONNECT WITH US**********- Information Quality
- Data Linkage Infrastructure
- Data Protection and Privacy Policy
- Accessibility
- FOIA
- Inspector General
- No FEAR Act
- U.S. Department of Commerce
- USA.gov

Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
✕Is this page helpful?YesNo✕NO THANKS255 characters maximum255 characters maximum reached✕Thank you for your feedback.Comments or suggestions?  Source: U.S. Census Bureau | Foreign Trade |  ftdwebmaster@census.gov |     Last Revised:  June 17, 2022
From: guitartzt@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Women"s Health

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 12:53:44 AM

What on earth has become of the separation of church and state. Are we to become a

fundamentalist fascist country? I certainly hope not.

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.

Sincerely Alice Artzt
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

    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 (1.39 MB)
 
 Ft. Campbell 101st commanders COALITION cjtf-oir Qayyarah Task Force Strike 18th Airborne Corps XVIII Silvia Battle Field Circulation Coin townsend Q-west FT. BRAGG Operation Inherent Resolve Iraq Air Assault US Army
 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
                               EXHIBIT 27

                  Appendix A to Item 601(c) of Regulation S-K
                      Commercial and Industrial Companies
                          Article 5 of Regulation S-X
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       2,162,698
<SECURITIES>                                   316,158
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,714,737
<ALLOWANCES>                                   100,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,860,114
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,548,616
<PP&E>                                     153,304,212
<DEPRECIATION>                              81,314,625
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             115,063,963
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       16,070,073
<BONDS>                                      2,014,000
<COMMON>                                    27,398,214
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          150,000
<PREFERRED>                                  1,692,641
<OTHER-SE>                                  52,565,460
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               115,063,963
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            67,054,006
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               51,349,967
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               323,075
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             705,112
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             17,045,092
<INCOME-TAX>                                 6,583,671
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         10,461,421
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                10,368,886
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     8.74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     8.66


</TABLE>
Page | of 1

Crp oY _ ;
REG- 120391-10

LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION

PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS As of: September 01, 2011
BRANCH Received: August 10, 2011

Status: Posted

PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: September 01, 2011

Tracking No. 80edcc34

‘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-2010-0017-0110
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information
Name: David Paul Bishop
Address:
Buffalo, NY,

General Comment

I believe in the separation of church and state, but as our founders envisioned it; that is the church
needs protection from the state, rather than the other way around.

As a concerned citizen and supporter of the prolife side of these issues, I wish to express deep
concern over the move by some groups who are attempting to remove conscience protections
from religious organizations. In fact I would like to see those protections broadened to include
various religious employers across the board. Thank you for this opportunity to voice my opinion.
Dave Bishop

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectld=09000... 9/1/2011
No. 276, Misc.

#### Foster *v.*Pitches, Sheriff, et al.

Supreme Court of California. Certiorari denied.
From: Solberg, Erika

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Preventative care for women

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 9:49:20 AM

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.

The only hospital and clinic in my town, which services many small outlying

communities as well, is Catholic; providing a religious exemption would make the law

moot for most women in my community.
From: Art Coates

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Urge coverage of preventive care under the new health care law

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:02:02 PM

Dear People,

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,

 Arthur Coates

VT
II

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1245

For the relief of Renato Rosetti.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 25, 2001

Mr. NICKLES introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Renato Rosetti.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

4 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for pur5 poses of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.

6 1101 et seq.), Renato Rosetti shall be held and considered

7 to have been lawfully admitted to the United States for

8 permanent residence as of the date of the enactment of

9 this Act upon payment of the required visa fee.

10 SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.

11 Upon the granting of permanent residence to Renato

12 Rosetti as provided in this Act, the Secretary of State
2

•S 1245 IS

1 shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by one number

2 during the current fiscal year the total number of immi3 grant visas available to natives of the country of the alien’s

4 birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nation5 ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)).

Æ
From: Patrick & Margaret Frank

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Public Comment On Required Coverage For "Preventive Health Services" For Women

Date: Sunday, August 14, 2011 10:36:46 AM

If at this late date it is at all possible to eliminate the requirement for coverage of contraception, IUDs,

emergency contraception, etc from the mandate of Health And Human Services, please understand my

strong position that these requirements for services in fact be eliminated. I strongly object to the killing

of the unborn, even if their mother might consider them inconvenient, and IUDs and emergency

contraception do, in fact, regularly end the life of an unborn child. I do not in any way wish to support

this activity with my tax dollars or insurance premiums. In addition, I believe artificial contraception to

be unacceptable in general, and do not want my tax dollars or insurance premiums supporting this

activity, either. 

Aside from legal arguments, it is absolutely wrong even from a strictly financial standpoint to require all

insurance policies to cover all conditions and desires. This only serves to drive up insurance premium

costs for everyone and therefore increase the cost of healthcare. It is extremely poor public policy. 

Pat
From: hava buchanan

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Friday, August 05, 2011 10:15:40 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,

hava buchanan

3747 1/2 Westwood

los angeles, ca 90034