alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Brenda Corderman

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 5:20:58 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,

Brenda Corderman

1 Calle Del Rodeo

Phillips Ranch, CA 91766
James Ray JunekAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 2, 2015

No. 04-15-00394-CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellant

v.

James Ray JUNEK,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR14-0145

Honorable Susan Harris, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellee’s First Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is GRANTED. The 

appellant’s brief is due on October 28, 2015.

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 2nd day of October, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 32.1906 CERTIFICATION     The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with this quarterly reportof Callidus Software Inc. on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) for the purpose of complying with Rule13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.     Robert H. Youngjohns, the Chief Executive Officer and Ronald J. Fior, the Chief FinancialOfficer of Callidus Software Inc., each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge: 1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act;and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of Callidus Software Inc.Date: November 14, 2006       /s/ ROBERT H. YOUNGJOHNS *Robert H. Youngjohns*    *President and Chief Executive Officer*         /s/ RONALD J. FIOR *Ronald J. Fior*    *Chief Financial Officer,*    *Senior Vice President, Finance and Operations*
From: Debra Mohan

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Birth Control for ALL Women

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 11:22:40 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.

All women no matter of race or religion should be able to have

preventative birth control. State and religion should not be bed mates.

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,

D. Mohan

Miami, Florida

Life. Changes. To find out more, go to www.LifeChanges.ca

This message is intended only for the use of the intended recipients,

and it may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended

recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission,

conversion to hard copy, copying, circulation or other use of this

message is strictly prohibited and may be illegal. If you are not the

intended recipient, please notify me immediately by return e-mail, and

delete this message from your system.
Chromium Electroplating RTR Summary of EPA Meeting with Atotech March 1, 2012

Participants

• Erin Newman , EPA

• Chuck French , EPA

• Phil Mulrine , EPA

• Cindy Hancy , RTI International

• Gene Barlow , Atotech USA Inc.

• Matthias Schmi dt , Atotech USA Inc.

• Matthias Rost , Atotech USA Inc.

• Neil Paton , Atotech USA Inc.

• Gokhan Kisaback, Atotech USA Inc. Summary A meeting between EPA and Atotech USA Inc. was set up to discuss chemical fume suppressant products that do not contain perfluoro

- octyl sulfonates (PFOS). Key Poin ts

• EPA proposed the phase out of PFOS chemical fume suppressants and lower surface tension limits for facilities subject to the Chromium Electroplating NESHAP.

• Non

- PFOS products account for 70% of Atotech’s worldwide fume suppressant sales.

• Atotech has a foaming and low

- foaming version of their non

- PFOS fume suppressant. Foaming issues sometimes occur with lower operating temperatures or at high concentrations, but t his issue also occurs with PFOS

- based fume suppressants. Excess foaming is not a large issu e worldwide and has only been a problem with a few of Atotech’s clients. It is usually solved by increasing the bath temperature 1

- 2°F and should not be an issue at a surface tension range of 30

- 33 dynes/cm.

• Atotech recommends operating at 30 dynes/cm and foaming is not generally an issue.

• There are 1

- 2 anodizing facilities in the U

. S

. that the Atotech representatives are aware of that are using a non

- PFOS fume suppressant. Some aerospace anodizing facilities are looking into using non

- PFOS fume suppressa nts.

• Japan, Australia, and Europe have phased out PFOS completely

. • Japan phased out PFOS in one year.

• Phase

- out of PFOS in Europe was done quickly and was not problematic.

• Some California plants use non

- PFOS fume suppressant s but have not had to go thr ough approval because it is used in conjunction with a secondary control device

. • Atotech did not have any additional studies that have not already been provided for tanks using non

- PFOS fume suppressants . They are also not aware of any facilities that hav e emissions data.

• Discussed differences between stalagmometers and tensiometers.

• Using a non

- PFOS fume suppressant generally results in lower consumption d ue to less drag out losses. T he majority of Atotech’s customers report an overall cost savings whenusing a non

- PFOS fume suppressant. Overall there seems to be a cost savings using non

PFOS compared to PFOS, or “worst

- case” the costs are about the same using non

- PFOS as compared to PFOS products.
Exhibit 10.2


 





Consulting Agreement


 


This agreement is made and will become effective
as of January 1st, 2012 by and between the RC-1, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company") and General Pacific Partners,
LLC (the "Consultant") to assist the Company in general business management services.


 


The Company agrees to retain
the Consultant for a period of three (3) years ("Consulting Term") and then a month to month, to be available and assist
the Company as the Company may reasonably request, and the Consultant agrees to provide assistance.


 


Company agrees to provide Consultant access
to all business materials to ascertain best practices in the motor racing marketing industry. The Company also agrees to reimburse
preapproved business expenses in accordance with the Company's policies and procedures.


 


Either party may terminate this
Agreement at any time on 60 days notice. If the Company terminates this Agreement for other than "Cause", the Consultant
shall continue to receive the consulting fee. Each party shall be given 10 days to cure any breach.


 


This Agreement may be executed
in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the
same instrument.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned
have executed this Agreement as of the date first set forth above.


 


 


RC-1, Inc.


 


 




By: /s/ Kevin P. O’Donnell


Kevin P. O’Donnell, CEO


 


By: /s/ Kevin P. O’Donnell


Kevin P. O’Donnell, Managing Member
II

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1181

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at

2719 South Webster Street in Kokomo, Indiana, as the ‘‘Elwood Haynes

‘Bud’ Hillis Post Office Building’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 16, 2001

Mr. LUGAR (for himself and Mr. BAYH) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

A BILL

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 2719 South Webster Street in Kokomo, Indiana, as the ‘‘Elwood Haynes ‘Bud’ Hillis Post Office

Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF ELWOOD HAYNES ‘‘BUD’’

4 HILLIS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The facility of the United States

6 Postal Service located at 2719 South Webster Street in

7 Kokomo, Indiana, shall be known and designated as the

8 ‘‘Elwood Haynes ‘Bud’ Hillis Post Office Building’’.
2

•S 1181 IS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall

4 be deemed to be a reference to the Elwood Haynes ‘‘Bud’’

5 Hillis Post Office Building.

Æ
From: Jane Shaaf

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: HEALTH CARE

Date: Friday, August 19, 2011 1:16:49 AM

E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA@dol.gov

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 Catholic hospitals 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: Faith Franck

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: No Religious Refusal exemptions

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 10:11:39 PM

E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA@dol.gov

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.

There is supposed to be separation of Church and State according to the Constitution. It is my personal

opinion, that providing "exemptions for religios reasons" is unconstitutional.

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: Barbara Moore-Lewis

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 5:18:31 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,

Barbara Moore-Lewis

PO Box 303

Brinnon, wa 98320
No. 354.

#### United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania et al. *v.*Mahoney et al., trading as Krusen, Evans & Byrne.

*James Alan Montgomery, Jr.*for petitioners.

*T. E. Byrne, Jr.*for respondents.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, Defense against pathogens.                    

*Date:*                         October 19, 2007.                    

*Time:*                         11:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Rockledge 6700, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Room # 3118, Bethesda, MD 20817, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Sujata Vijh, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, NIAID/NIH/DHHS, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-0985,                         *vijhs@niaid.nih.gov.*
      ( print page 52897)    
(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) 

Dated: September 7, 2007.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. 

[FR Doc. 07-4575  Filed 9-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
No. 637, Misc.

#### Betts *v.*Randolph, Warden.

Circuit Court of Randolph County, Illinois. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>

                                                               Exhibit 23.1


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-3 (No. 33-84222) and related Prospectus pertaining to the
registration of 2,140,442 shares of Questron Technology, Inc. common stock, in
the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 33-63555) and related Prospectus
pertaining to the registration of 6,017,444 shares of Questron Technology,
Inc. common stock, in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-87628)
pertaining to the registration of 756,667 shares of Questron Technology, Inc.
common stock issuable pursuant to the various stock option plans of Questron
Technology, Inc. and in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-7049)
and related Prospectus pertaining to the registration of 1,070,000 shares of
Questron Technology, Inc. common stock of our report dated March 19, 1997 with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of Questron Technology, Inc.
included in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31,
1996.





                                              MOORE STEPHENS, P. C.
                                              Certified Public Accountants.

Cranford, New Jersey
March 19, 1997



                             58
From: john gasperoni

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Exemptions

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 2:26:46 PM

Gentlepersons,

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.

Yours,

John Gasperoni
From: Cynthia Saalfield

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Preventive Care Under New Health Care Law

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:34:18 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.

I urge you to ensure that women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.
##### 



Exhibit 99.2
Disclosure Controls and Procedures

RCI management, including the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer, have conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of disclosure
controls and procedures pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 13a-15. Based on that
evaluation, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded
that the disclosure controls and procedures are effective in ensuring that all
material information required to be filed in this report has been made known to
them in a timely fashion. There have been no significant changes in internal
controls, or in factors that could significantly affect internal controls,
subsequent to the date the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
completed their evaluation.
II

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1096

To eliminate the requirement that certain covered beneficiaries under chapter

55 of title 10, United States Code, obtain a nonavailability-of-healthcare statement with respect to obstetrics and gynecological care related

to a pregnancy.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 25, 2001

Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Ms. LANDRIEU) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To eliminate the requirement that certain covered beneficiaries under chapter 55 of title 10, United States

Code, obtain a nonavailability-of-health-care statement

with respect to obstetrics and gynecological care related

to a pregnancy.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Military Spouse Physi5 cian Choice Act’’.
2

•S 1096 IS

1 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF REQUIREMENT TO OBTAIN NON2 AVAILABILITY-OF-HEALTH-CARE STATEMENT

3 IN CASES OF PREGNANCY.

4 (a) ELIMINATION OF REQUIREMENT.—Section

5 1080(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by

6 striking the second sentence.

7 (b) EXPANSION OF NONAVAILABILITY STATEMENT

8 WAIVER AUTHORITY.—Section 721 of the Floyd D.

9 Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

10 Year 2001 (as enacted by Public Law 106–398; 114 Stat.

11 1654A–446) is amended—

12 (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘, or with re13 spect to obstetrics and gynecological care related to

14 the pregnancy of such a beneficiary who is enrolled

15 in TRICARE Extra,’’ after ‘‘TRICARE Standard’’;

16 and

17 (2) in subsection (c)—

18 (A) by redesignating paragraphs (1)

19 through (3) as subparagraphs (A) through (C),

20 respectively;

21 (B) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ after ‘‘(c) EXCEP22 TIONS.—’’; and

23 (C) by adding at the end the following new

24 paragraph:
3

•S 1096 IS

1 ‘‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply in the case of ob2 stetrics and gynecological care related to the pregnancy

3 of a covered beneficiary.’’.

Æ