alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: SteveTry [mailto:strv75@yahoo.com]

sent: Thursday,January09,20147:49 PM

To: Schlemmer,Kevin(OST)

Subject: DOT-OST-2011-0131

Mr. Schlemmer,

I am writing about additional information for the DOT to consider in addition to the comments for EAS

service at Sioux Gateway Airport in Sioux City, Iowa when consider United Airlines or American

Airlines to serve the market under EAS. Although city officials did not directly say their preference for

an air carrier I would consider having United Airlines take over the route to evolve the market off

EAS. American has not come through on their "plans" with their original pitch for EAS. American

strongly hinted about the potential for additional service to the Dallas hub and being able to support

itself after the full two year period which they have failed to do. American boardings have been

around 80% full which is the norm for most markets that don't need EAS. In this bid for EAS American

has not hinted about Dallas service -- only two flights to ORO which makes you question if they are

interested in developing the market of just using EAS as a free ride.?? United usually does not enter

into markets they cant develop off EAS but they must see potential in the market and even stated

their interest in expanding to Denver in the future especially since they will be receiving many regional

jets in the next couple of years. Being centrally located between ORO and DEN -- Sioux City is more

likely to be developed with the combination of the east and eventually west hubs by United to evolve

off EAS. One big criteria to consider is that American boardings at Sioux Gateway are dropping. I

believe this is due because of the delays and cancellations out of SUX causing people to consider

flying out of neighboring airports. I also have not seen hardly any promotions by American

either. Although the merger has went through American will have a tough couple of years trying to

merge which United has already conquered. American has giving their subsidiary regional carrier

and Sioux City route carrier "American Eagle" to either take more pay cuts or be the next "Comair" ---

which means put out of business. This would not be good for the DOT EAS and Sioux Gateway. I

also have to question fares out of Sioux City -- they should be a lot lower since they are subsidized.

even read where one fare was purchased for $7611 for a party of two traveling from Sioux City to

Wichita Kansas for a court case. Even though it was not purchased in advance --- that is way to

much money. It was in the hutchnews article on Aug 27, 2013 "Big cost for pair to fly ok'd". Another

article to read is "American Airlines may add Dallas" in the Nov 10, 2011 edition of the Sioux City

Journal -- should be able to google them.

Even though American subsidy proposal is lower than Uniteds -- please consider that United is the

best carrier to redevelop the Sioux City market without EAS in the future.

Regards

1
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
financial statements set forth in the Form 10-QSB On Stage  Entertainment,  Inc.
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001035514
<NAME>                        On Stage Entertainment, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     None

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         616
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  951
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    218
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2723
<PP&E>                                         16553
<DEPRECIATION>                                 5368
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 13908
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          21561
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       72
<OTHER-SE>                                     (7683)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   13908
<SALES>                                        13257
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               13257
<CGS>                                          9186
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  10892
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2535
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1858
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8895)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8895)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8895)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0


</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [S-170-2023]

An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, grantee of FTZ 49, requesting an expansion of Subzone 49W on behalf of Getinge Group Logistics Americas LLC (GGLA), located in East Windsor, New Jersey. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on September 1, 2023.

                    The application requests authority to expand Subzone 49W to include the following new site:                     *Site 2*                     (3.85 acres) 160 Princeton Hightstown Road, East Windsor, New Jersey. No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time. The subzone will be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 49.                

In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Christopher Kemp of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.

                    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:                     *ftz@trade.gov.*                     The closing period for their receipt is October 17, 2023. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to November 1, 2023.                

                    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information Section” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via                     *www.trade.gov/​ftz.*

                    For further information, contact Christopher Kemp at                     *Christopher.Kemp@trade.gov.*

Dated: September 1, 2023.

Elizabeth Whiteman,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2023-19330 Filed 9-6-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
No. 604.

#### Division 1287, Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway & Motor Coach Employees of America, et al. *v.*Missouri.

*Bernard Cushman, Bernard Dunau*and *John Manning*for appellants.

*Thomas F. Eagleton,*Attorney-General of Missouri, and *J. Gordon Siddens*and *John C. Baumann,*Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

Appeal from the Supreme Court of Missouri. Probable jurisdiction noted.
From: Heather Lehman-Ladner

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Accepting the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine

Date: Monday, August 15, 2011 2:44:26 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.
Alpharma Inc.
                                
                 Subsidiaries of the Registrant
                                
                                                       EXHIBIT 21
                                                                 

NAME                               JURISDICTION WHICH
                                        ORGANIZED

United States:

A.L. Specialty Chemicals, Inc.          Delaware
Alpharma NW Inc.                        Washington
Alpharma U.S. Inc.                      Delaware
Barre Parent Corporation                Delaware
Alpharma USPD Inc.                      Maryland
G. F. Reilly Company                    Delaware
ParMed Pharmaceuticals, Inc.            Delaware
NMC Laboratories, Inc.                  New York
Odin Pharmaceuticals Inc.               New Jersey
Wade Jones Company, Inc.                Texas
MikJan Corporation                      Arkansas

Foreign:

A.L-Pharma A/S                          Denmark
Alpharma AS                             Norway
Allabinc de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.        Mexico
Empressa Laboratories De
   Mexico S.A. de C.V.                  Mexico
Dumex-Alpharma A/S                      Denmark
Dumex AG                                Switzerland
Dumex B.V.                              Holland
Dumex-Alpharma AB                       Sweden
Dumex Limited                           United Kingdom
Oy Dumex-Alpharma AB                    Finland
PT Dumex-Alpharma Indonesia             Indonesia
Alpharma do Brazil LTDA                 Brazil
Alpharma SARL                           France
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           4,188
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   57,463
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (173)
<INVENTORY>                                     21,963
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                85,269
<PP&E>                                          15,801
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,799)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  98,800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,424
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           128
<OTHER-SE>                                      53,195
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    98,800
<SALES>                                        110,118
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               110,444
<CGS>                                           88,688
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,154
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 444
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,158
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,339)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,497
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,497
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .59
        

</TABLE>
From: Mary Ellen Palmisano

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Mandate on rights of conscience for contraceptives

Date: Saturday, August 06, 2011 9:50:04 AM

I am deeply disappointed in the recent decision/ mandate requiring that all insurance plans provide

coverage for all prescription contraceptives and abortifacients. Failure to ensure respect for right of

conscience to all is not freedom in America.

It is critical that all voices of conscience be heard and protected in such important and widespread

policy decisions. Respect for conscience is continually tested and challenged, yet it is essential that such

conscience protection be granted for not only religious employers, but for all employers, insurers, and

policy issuers with moral, ethical, or religious objections as well. Thank you.

sincerely,

Mary Ellen Palmisano

Sent from my iPhone
ex42.htm












App Incline, INC.


 SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT







The Investor named below, by payment of the purchase price for such Common Shares, by the delivery of a check payable to APP INCLINE INC., hereby subscribes for the purchase of the number of Common Shares indicated below of APP INCLINE, INC., at a purchase of $0.01 per Share as set forth in the Prospectus.







By such payment, the named Investor further acknowledges receipt of the Prospectus and the Subscription Agreement, the terms of which govern the investment in the Common Shares being subscribed for hereby.







A. INVESTMENT:               (1) Number of Shares ______________________________________












(2) Date of Investor's check ___________________________________







B. REGISTRATION:







(3) Registered owner: __________________________________







Co-Owner: __________________________________







(4) Mailing address:







City, State & zip:







(5) Residence Address (if different from above):







                         







(6) Birth Date: ______/______/__







(7) Employee or Affiliate: Yes ______ No ______







(8) Social Security: #: ______/____/______







U.S. Citizen [ ] Other [ ]







Co-Owner Social Security:







#: ______/______/______







U.S. Citizen [ ] Other [ ]







Corporate or Custodial:







Taxpayer ID #: ______/______/______







U.S. Citizen [ ] Other [ ]







(9) Telephone (H)







(10) *email address:___________________________________


*Please note that by providing your email address, you accept that all further communications between you and the Company shall be by email, unless otherwise required by law and/or the rules and regulations of any governing body of traded securities.









  





1











  











C. OWNERSHIP







[ ] Individual Ownership                                           [ ] IRA or Keogh







[ ] Joint Tenants with Rights of Survivorship







[ ] Trust/Date Trust Established_______________







[ ] Pension/Trust (S.E.P.)







[ ] Tenants in Common                                           [ ] Tenants by the Entirety







[ ] Corporate Ownership                                           [ ] Partnership







[ ] Other_____________________







D. SIGNATURES


Registered Owner:__________________________________







Co-Owner: _____________________________







Print Name of Custodian or Trustee: _____________________________







Authorized Signature:







Date: ___________________________________







Signature:







MAIL TO:                                APP INCLINE INC.


   1510 Longbranch Ave, Grover Beach, CA 93433 


 


FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:


Date Received: _______ _________________________________________


Date Accepted/Rejected ___


Subscriber's Check Amount:


Check No. ___________________ Date Check            


 






  





2
November 13, 1962.

No. 62.

#### Northern Natural Gas Co. *v.*State Corporation Commission of Kansas.

*Will Wilson,*Attorney General of Texas, and *Linward Shivers,*Assistant Attorney General, on the motion.

Appeal from the Supreme Court of Kansas. (Probable jurisdiction noted, 370 U. S. 901.) The motion of the State of Texas for leave to participate in oral argument, as *amicus curiae,*is denied.
From: Jan

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Birth control

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 8:49:47 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.

Making laws that exempt a religious community from

responsibilities is contrary to the Bill of Rights, part of the

Constitution. That is contrary to the idea of the US.

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: Matt & Georgene Ulrich

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: contraception

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 12:28:18 PM

HHS has no business in making personal decisions for anyone about their insurance needs—

apparently you are unaware that most forms of birth control are abortion, and if you want all the

facts

please contact me, I will send them to you. Shame on you Kathleen S. you know the facts-----

another case of regulations from the government that cost us $$$$$$$$$

Matt Ulrich from Seattle
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

Thlr departaent I8 i 

24, 1939, rque8tiag an opinio 

l elaetion ot a bank an oount 

camber ot the County YeD 

w letter or ?eb:uarT 

on of whether the 

08@ prerldent ir 8 

) 19%. 8pp.?arlng in 

Volwam 1133 at p8ge uwuarlng 8 r*l*tod 

(Iarc llblOh wao 60. 

oh, two of WhlOb ooaJ .BObO&StiO8, Wa8 IlOt d18- 

County Borrd Oi YOhooL 'h&888 

outlon uadsr krtiols 373, Pam1 

Lncluciw, a8 amenbed by E. 8. 

r 3¶88iOlb, 45th L8g., p. leP&1318, pro88iOll4t8’ Court Or 08Oh OOWIt~ #hall 

Artleh t963 proVia Ch8t in th0 08S* Oi’i8aOXpOr~t8d 

‘%rht8 baring 188s ttaa one huadrd fifty 8rhOl88tia8, l 811 frill68 

l t 8uoh alrtrictr 8hall br kept in th. eOtUdy d8~Si9Ort.r and pciid 

.~ ** on order of tna LrU8te48 spprorbd by the Oarnty 8~p4riZltOZMhat.' 
&a. Park8 ::. ~oXlohar1, iiaroh 9, 1939, Page t 

. 

Under ttl4 prOYi8iOll8 of &t+lcle l%i?8, Rev1404 %4tUto8 

1926, and Artioh 2829, 88 8E4lldOd kOt8 iQS1, uZbd Lee., p. 43, 

Ch. 34, the oounty dspo4ltorr 14 ma0 the d8pO41tO~ ror tbo fUlld8 

Of oommon 8ObOOl d14triotr. 

Under tho prOvlliOn8 of tit1010 2838, triad btatUtO8, 

1926, the fund8 of lnde~endont rohool dirtrlotr, barlq man than 

On0 hUndrOd 8nd fiftY 8OhOh8tiO8 , are kept in depo8ltorier releoted 

~4 8pprored by the bo8rd of tAl8t888 of 4uoh independent rohool 

dlcltriot. 

A8 ehown by t&o fomgoin(l 8t8tute8, the rohool had4 kept 

by the county deporltory are there belonging to 00-n rohool di8triotr 

and indsQond@nt 4Oh001 dl8trlOt8 h8tfng 1488 then On0 hundred end 

rift+ roholartlor. The County Board of Cohool Tru8tsor 18 not 

Ofilclall~ oonoexned wlth the management &nd dirburrrment of 8uoh 

sohool fund8 and he8 nothing whatever to bo with makind the Oontmot rlth ths depository bank. 

Thl8 department 18 of the oplnlon that the County Commi48ionor8* Court nay &ogally de8ignate a4 the oounty deporitory, 

4 bank who80 prsrldeat 18 a member of the County bard of Zchool 

%wtaaa. 

YOW8 vary truly 

ATTORNXY CFSERAL OP TEXAS