alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: sfmoschell@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:00:21 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,

Scott Moschell

Springdale, AR 72764
From: Joanne Szamreta

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: free contraception needed!

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:40:16 PM

The majority of Catholic women use birth control. It would be of great

detriment to them if 'religious refusal' exemptions for religious employers

prevented these women from getting free contraception. Preventive care should

be available to ALL women!

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.
From: Jonda Clemings

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Adopt IOM"s recommendation that women"s preventative health care and contraception be covered by health

care plans

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 5:54:08 PM

Good day. I am writing to you to provide my support that the Dept. of Health and

Human Services adopt the Institute of Medicine's recommendations that women's

preventative health care be completely covered by any new health insurance plans

and under the new health care reform law.

I also ask wish that you reject any exemptions for religious employers. All women no

matter what their employer's affiliation should be able to access preventative health

care and contraception.

I encourage you to allow women to have the right to choose the type of care that

they wish without any employer exemptions.

Thank you for your time and consideration.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 168 (Thursday, August 31, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 60247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18782]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: August 31, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
August 22, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 
35 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, 
Docket Nos. MC2023-243, CP2023-246.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2023-18782 Filed 8-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
From: skri7777@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

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

Sharon Krieger

Greenbrier, TN 37073
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

 

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, each of the undersigned hereby certifies thatthe Quarterly Report of NetBank, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

Date:May 10, 2006

 

 
| /s/  Douglas K. Freeman               |   |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Chairman  and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                                  |   |
| /s/  Steven F. Herbert                |   |   |
| Chief  Finance Executive              |   |

 

----
Exhibit 10.36
 TEMPLE-INLAND INC.
2010 INCENTIVE PLAN
 Definitions




---



##### 



2




---



##### 



Purpose
 Administration
 3




---



##### 



Eligibility
 Stock Subject to Plan
    4




---



##### 



Options
     5




---



##### 



Exercise of Options
   Restricted Stock Awards
 Restricted Stock Unit Awards
 Performance Awards
 6




---



##### 



Other Stock-Based Awards
 Dividends and Dividend Equivalents
 Capital Events and Adjustments
   7




---



##### 



Change in Control
      8




---



##### 



Termination or Amendment
 9




---



##### 



Foreign Employees
 Stockholder Approval
 Withholding
 Term of Plan
 Indemnification of Committee
 10




---



##### 



General Provisions
       11




---



##### 



12
#### Alexander Doyle, Appellant, *v.*Hamilton Fish Corporation, Respondent.

Reported below, 153 App. Div. 892.

(Submitted February 24, 1913;

decided March 4, 1913.)

Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered November 11, 1912, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term without a jury in an action to recover under the terms of a lease. Also motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of said Appellate Division, entered December 13, 1912, which denied a motion for leave to re-argue the appeal to that court.

The first motion was made upon the grounds that the affirmance by the Appellate Division was unanimous; that the exceptions were frivolous and that permission to appeal had not been obtained. The second motion was made upon the ground that the order appealed from was discretionary and, therefore, net appealable.

*John S. Montgomery*for motion.

*Merritt E. Haviland*opposed.

Motion to dismiss appeal from judgment denied, with ten dollars costs.

Motion to dismiss appeal from order denying re-argument granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion.
No. 99, Misc.

#### Palumbo *v.*New Jersey.

Supreme Court of New Jersey. Certiorari denied.
No. 377.

#### Village of Brown Deer *v.*City of Milwaukee et al.

*Harold H. Fuhrman*and *Stewart G. Honeck*for petitioner.

*Harry G. Slater, Richard F. Maruszewski*and

*John F. Cook*for the City of Milwaukee, respondent.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Certiorari denied.
From: evernonjr@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Definition of religious employer

Date: Sunday, August 07, 2011 3:01:44 PM

To Whom it May Concern:

I am disappointed about the requirement that insurance companies and employers must provide benefits

to pay for artificial contraceptives and the "morning after" pill. The only exceptions are the narrowly

defined religious employers. This definition needs to be broadened to include ANY employer or

insurance company that objects in conscience to the provision of these "benefits". This total lack of

respect for individuals' conscience is appalling and can not be allowed to stand. Please reconsider this

matter and address our concerns. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Gail Brady
From: Rita Sklar

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Recommendations for Women"s Health

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 7:22:29 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.

See my paintings at "http://www.ritasklar.com"
From: Joan Enderle

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Women"s Preventative Health Care - coverage recommendations

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 9:14:41 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 I believe that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access to contraceptive services, others,

are pushing the government to make exemptions even larger. While some groups may be 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.
# Uradni list C 153A/10.

| | ISSN 1725-5244 |
| --- | --- |
| Uradni list
  Evropske unije | C 153A |
| | |
| Slovenska izdaja | Informacije in objave | Zvezek 4710. junij 2004 |

ISSN 1725-5244

Uradni list

Evropske unije

C 153A

Slovenska izdaja

Informacije in objave

Zvezek 4710. junij 2004

---

| Obvestilo št. | Vsebina | Stran |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Objave |
| | Svet |
| 2004/C 153A/1 | Razpis prostega delovnega mesta (sklic A/013) | 1 |

Obvestilo št.

Vsebina

Stran

III   Objave

Svet

2004/C 153A/1

Razpis prostega delovnega mesta (sklic A/013)

1

| SL | |
| --- | --- |

SL

---

III Objave

Svet

| 10.6.2004 | SL | Uradni list Evropske unije | CA 153/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.6.2004

SL

Uradni list Evropske unije

CA 153/1

---

RAZPIS PROSTEGA DELOVNEGA MESTA

(sklic A/013)

ADMINISTRATOR

(2004/C 153A/01)

Generalni sekretariat Sveta Evropske unije želi v okviru skupne evropske varnostne in obrambne politike (SEVOP) v Generalnem direktoratu E — Zunanji odnosi — Direktorat VIII, zaposliti administratorja v razredu A*9, pristojnega za obrambne zadeve.

Dodatne informacije (v angleškem in francoskem jeziku) ter obrazci za prijavo so na voljo pri službi za izbor in zaposlovanje osebja na sledečem elektronskem naslovu: service.recrutement@consilium.eu.int ali na spletni strani: http://ue.eu.int/concours.

Rok za oddajo vlog: 9. julij 2004, pri čemer se upošteva datum poštnega žiga.

---
---

---

Exhibit 23.10

CONSENT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Forms S-8, (File No.
333-61895, File No. 333-55970) and Forms S-3,( File No. 333-140968 , File No. 333-140969
and , File No. 333-140974) of our report dated March 29, 2007 relating to the financial
statements of Ophir Holdings Ltds 2006 Annual report to shareholders, which appears
in this Form 10-K of Ampal  American Israel Corporation .

Kesselman & Kesselman CPAs (ISR) A member of Pricewaterhouse Coopers International Limited

Tel-Aviv, Israel
13 March , 2008



---

---
~ (2G p Page | of 1
LEGAL PROCESSING DIV; REC 1203 9/10 6
PUBLICATION & REGUL AS oN PIE TALS SEP 4704

ON & REGULATIONS

‘As of: September 01, 2011
Received: August 15, 2011

Status: Posted

PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: September 01, 2011
Tracking No. 80ce17d7

(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-2010-0017-0134
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: Sean Patrick Boyd
Address:

616 20th Ave E

Seattle, WA, 98112
Email: boydsean@hotmail.com

General Comment

I strongly support the new policy requiring health-insurance plans to cover birth control without a
co-pay, CMS-9992-IFC2. I am also concerned that certain religious employers may be allowed to
opt out of the requirements. All women should have access to contraceptive coverage, regardless
of where they work. Furthermore no pharmacy or health care provider should ever be able to opt
out of any medical treatment or prescription due to religious beliefs. If pharmacists don't approve
of peoples live styles and choices due to their narrow minded religious beliefs then they shouldn't
be pharmacists.

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectId=09000... 9/1/2011
AMENDMENT OF CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED
LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP


For


AHIT VALFRE, LLP


AHIT Valfre,
LLP, a Maryland Limited Liability Partnership hereby certifies to the State Department of Assessments and Taxation of Maryland
that:


The Certificate
of Limited Liability Partnership dated July 1, 2015 (the “Certificate”) for AHIT Valfre, LLP (the “Partnership”)
is hereby amended as follows:


In the Certificate,
the Partnership disclosed that American Housing Income Trust, Inc., a Maryland corporation (“AHIT”), served as its
General Partner. The Limited Partners at the time of the Certificate were Valfre Holdings, LLC, and James and Pamela Valfre (collectively,
the “Valfres”). The rights, duties and obligations of the General Partner and the Limited Partners were governed by
the Limited Liability Partnership Agreement of AHIT Valfre, LLP dated August 1, 2015 (the “Limited Liability Partnership
Agreement”). The Partnership has restructured through the execution of the First Amended Limited Liability Partnership Agreement
of AHIT Valfre, LLP effective April 18, 2016 (the “First Amended Agreement”). Pursuant to the First Amended Agreement,
the General Partners is AHIT Valfre GP, LLC, a Maryland limited liability company in which AHIT is the sole member (“AHIT
Valfre GP”). AHIT Valfre GP is the General Partner in the Partnership. The Valfres formed AHIT Valfre Limiteds, LLC, a Maryland
limited liability company (AHIT Valfre Limiteds”). AHIT Valfre Limiteds is the Limited Partner in the Partnership. The Partnership
still operates as an umbrella operating partnership for AHIT, which intends to operate as a real estate investment trust in tax
year 2016. The First Amended Agreement is on file with the General Partner.


This amendment
of the limited liability certificate has been approved by the General Partner and Limited Partner.



We the undersigned authorized agent for AHIT Valfre GP swear under penalties of perjury that the forgoing is an authorized act
of the Partnership.


APPROVED:


AHIT Valfre GP, LLC, by and through its
sole


member,


 


American Housing Income Trust, Inc.,
a


Maryland corporation.


 


By: /s/ Jeff Howard_________________


Jeff Howard


Chief Executive Officer


President


 


Return address of filling party:


Paesano Akkashian Apkarian, PC


c/o Anthony R. Paesano


7457 Franklin Road, Suite 200


Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301







    	-1-
BOEM Seeks Public Involvement in Preparing an Environmental Assessment for the 

BPXA 2014 3D Geophysical Ocean Bottom Sensor Seismic Survey in the U.S. Beaufort Sea 

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is preparing an Environmental Assessment 

(EA) for a proposed seismic survey by BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc (BPXA). The proposed 

survey area covers approximately 190 square miles, including State lands north and northwest of 

the village of Deadhorse, Alaska and waters of the Beaufort Sea. The project is proposed to take 

place between June 1 and September 30, 2014. Although the EA will include an analysis of 

proposed activities within the entire proposed project area, BOEM's jurisdiction for issuing a 

permit is limited to activities in the Outer Continental Shelf. BOEM is inviting the public to 

comment on issues that should be considered by BOEM in preparing the EA. 

BOEM received BPXA's 2014 Geological and Geophysical (G&G) Permit application on 

December 27, 2013. BPXA's permit application 14-03, an associated area coverage map, and a 

BPXA developed environmental impact assessment are available for review at: 

http://www.boem.gov/About-BOEM/BOEM-Regions/Alaska-Region/ResourceEvaluation/Permits/14_03/index.aspx. 

BOEM is only accepting and considering public comments submitted through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. BOEM-2014-0005). The 

deadline to receive these comments is March 21, 2014 (midnight, EST). BOEM cautions that 

before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying 

information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your 

personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you may 

ask BOEM (prominently at the beginning of your submission) to withhold your personal 

identifying information from public view, BOEM cannot guarantee that it will be able to do 

so. BOEM will not consider anonymous comments.
From: Fay McFarlane

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Preventive care and contraception

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 12:04:29 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.