alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:27:16 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,

Marshall Matthews

Pine Bluff, AR 71601
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                   EXHIBIT 11
              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

                                                                      June 30,
                                                                      --------
                                                                2000         1999(1)
                                                                ----         -----
<S>                                                          <C>           <C>
Net Earnings (in thousands)                                  $     171     $     148

  Basic earnings per share:
    Weighted average shares outstanding                        859,625       859,625

    Less unearned employee stock ownership plan shares         (42,747)      (50,585)

    Less shares repurchased                                   (242,530)      (60,806)

    Average option shares granted                                    0             0

    Less assumed purchase of shares using treasury method            0             0
                                                             ---------     ---------

  Common and common equivalent shares outstanding              574,348       748,234
                                                             ---------     ---------

  Earnings per common share - basic                          $    0.30     $    0.20
                                                             ---------     ---------

  Diluted earnings per share:
    Weighted average shares outstanding                        859,625       859,625

    Less unearned employee stock ownership plan shares         (42,747)      (50,585)

    Less shares repurchased                                   (242,530)      (60,806)

    Average option shares granted(2)                                 0             0

    Less assumed purchase of shares using treasury method            0             0
                                                             ---------     ---------

  Common and common equivalent shares outstanding              574,348       748,234
                                                             ---------     ---------

  Earnings per common share - diluted                        $    0.30     $    0.20
                                                             ---------     ---------

</TABLE>

(1)      See page 8 for Earnings per Share
(2)      Option price exceeds market price
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 111 (Friday, June 8, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34121-34122]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13973]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 7916]

Designation and Determination Pursuant to the Foreign Missions 
Act Concerning the Designation of Entities in the United States That 
Are Substantially Owned or Effectively Controlled by the Government of 
Azerbaijan as Foreign Missions and the Determination That Property 
Transactions on the Part of Such Entities Are Subject to Foreign 
Mission Act Regulation

    In order to adjust for costs and procedures of obtaining benefits 
for the United States Embassy in Azerbaijan and to protect the 
interests of the United States, pursuant to the authority vested in the 
Secretary of State under the Foreign Missions Act, 22 U.S.C. 4301-4316 
as amended (``the Act''), which has been delegated to me in accordance 
with the Department of State's Delegation of Authority No. 214, dated 
September 20, 1994, I hereby designate the State Oil Company of the 
Republic of Azerbaijan (SOCAR), an entity engaged in activities in the 
United States that is substantially owned or effectively controlled by 
the Government of Azerbaijan and all other entities, including any that 
are

[[Page 34122]]

designated by the Department of State as ``Miscellaneous Foreign 
Government Offices'', as ``foreign missions'' within the meaning of 
Section 4302(a)(3) of the Act. I also determine that the provisions of 
Section 4305 of the Act apply to the acquisition or disposition of real 
property by or on behalf of such entities.
    Pursuant to Section 4305 of the Act, the aforementioned entities 
are obligated to notify and obtain the approval of the Department of 
State's Office of Foreign Missions (OFM) before finalizing a proposed 
acquisition of real property in the United States. Accordingly, all 
such proposals are subject to disapproval by OFM.
    I further determine that such entities shall request approval of 
their proposed acquisitions of real property by transmitting an 
official letter to OFM, which at a minimum includes the following 
information:
    1. The exact physical address of the property;
    2. A description of the proposed use of the property; and
    3. The name and contact information of an individual authorized to 
discuss the proposed property acquisition with OFM.
    Prior to receiving a response from OFM concerning such requests, 
such entities may not enter into a contract for the purchase of real 
property, unless the agreement expressly states that its execution is 
subject to disapproval by the Department of State.
    This determination will remain in effect until such time as the 
Department of State finalizes its acquisition of a new site in Baku, 
Azerbaijan, on which it can construct a secure, safe, and modern 
chancery compound.

    Dated: May 31, 2012.
Eric J. Boswell,
Director, Office of Foreign Missions.
[FR Doc. 2012-13973 Filed 6-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-43-P
```
u.s. Deportment 

of Transportallon 

Federal AvloHon 

Admlnls1TaHon 

MAY 2 6 2010 

Mr. Charles E. Bannister 

Chairman 

Airport Compliance and Field Operations 

Owinnett County Board of Commissioners 

75 Langley Drive 

Lawrenceville, GA 30046 

Dear Mr. Bannister: 

800 Independence Ave., SIN. 

Washington, DC 20591 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is pleased to infonn you that your preliminary 

application for Gwinnett County Airport Briscoe Field's (LZU) participation in the Airport 

Privatization Pilot Program is accepted for further review. The application is designated as 

FAA Docket Number 2010-0473. and it can be viewed at www.regulations.gov.Gwinnett 

County (the County) may select a private operator, negotiate an agreement and submit a final 

application. 

April 26, 2010 is noted as the filing date of this preliminary application. This was the FAA's 

date of receipt of the preliminary application. Our acceptance of this preliminary application 

for review is contingent on the County's continued compliance with the procedural 

requirements ofTitle 49 U.S.C. § 47134. The final application, when submitted, must include 

a title search of all federally obligated property and all financial terms of the transaction 

identified in the FAA's Notice of.final applicalion procedures for lhe Airport PriValization 

Pilot Program, Application Procedures, 62 Federal Register 48693 -48708 (September 16, 

1997) (Notice) (as modified, 62 FR 63211, November 26,1997). If the FAA approves the 

final application for Gwinnett County Airport Briscoe Field's participation in the Pilot 

Program, Owinnett County Airport Briscoe Field will qualify as the Pilot Program's general 

aviation airport required by Title 49 U.S.C. §47134. 

If you have any questions, please contact Kevin Willis, Airport Compliance Officer at 

202-267-8741. Thank you. 

Sincerely, 

Randall S. Fiertz 

Director of Airport Compliance 

and Field Operations 

cc: Emory Geiger, Gwinnett County Airport Authority
From: Linda McDonald

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Preventive Services

Date: Sunday, August 14, 2011 8:55:36 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.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 178 (Friday, September 15, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 63646]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19697]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

[Docket No. FHWA-2023-0026]


Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments 
for a New Information Collection; Withdrawal

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The FHWA is withdrawing the notice, ``Agency Information 
Collection Activities: Request for Comments for a New Information 
Collection,'' published in the Federal Register on August 31, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Spencer Stevens, 202-366-6221, Office 
of Planning, Environment and Realty Federal Highway Administration, 
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 
20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FHWA is withdrawing the notice published 
in the Federal Register on August 31, 2023 at 88 FR 60260 (FR Number 
2023-18838).

    Issued on: September 7, 2023.
Jazmyne Lewis,
Information Collection Officer.
[FR Doc. 2023-19697 Filed 9-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
*** RESTATED FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE ***
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
AMERITECH CORPORATION'S DECEMBER 31, 1995 CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         131,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,940,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                   166,200
<INVENTORY>                                    204,900
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,452,400
<PP&E>                                      30,873,700
<DEPRECIATION>                              17,416,900
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,942,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,761,900
<BONDS>                                      4,513,200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       587,600
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,426,900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,942,600
<SALES>                                              0<F2>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,427,800
<CGS>                                                0<F3>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,124,800
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (260,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               209,500
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             468,900
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,094,100
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,086,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,007,600
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,007,600
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.81<F4>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.81<F4>
<FN>
<F1>WE HAVE NOT STATED SECURITIES SEPARATELY IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 
BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT MATERIAL. WE HAVE INCLUDED THEM IN THE "CASH" TAG.
<F2>NET SALES OF TANGIBLE PRODUCTS IS NOT MORE THAN 10% OF TOTAL OPERATING
REVENUES. WE THEREFORE HAVE NOT STATED THESE SALES SEPARATELY IN THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, PER REGULATION S-X, RULE 5-03(B). WE HAVE INCLUDED
THESE SALES IN THE "TOTAL REVENUE" TAG.
<F3>WE HAVE INCLUDED COST OF TANGIBLE GOODS SOLD IN OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES 
IN OUR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE "TOTAL COST" TAG, PER REGULATION
S-X, RULE 5-03(B).
<F4>WE HAVE CALCULATED EARNINGS PER SHARE AMOUNTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH FAS
128 "EARNINGS PER SHARE." WE HAVE ENTERED BASIC AND DILUTED AMOUNTS IN PLACE
OF PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED, RESPECTIVELY, AND REFLECT THE TWO-FOR-ONE
STOCK SPLIT EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 31, 1997.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
1 The Honorable Ralph Erickson, United States District Judge for the District of North Dakota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-1035

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of North Dakota. Loren Longie, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant, * ________ * * Spirit Lake Tribe, * * Garnishee. *

___________ Submitted: May 15, 2009 Filed: May 19, 2009

___________ Before RILEY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Loren Longie challenges the district court’s 1 order of garnishment, which was entered to help satisfy Longie’s criminal restitution debt. On appeal, he argues that a tribal disbursement was not subject to collection by the government because it-2- constituted “other income” under 26 U.S.C. § 6334(a)(9). After careful review, we conclude that section 6334(a)(9) does not apply in this case. See 18 U.S.C. § 3613(a)(1), (f) (United States may enforce judgment imposing fine using procedures for enforcement of civil judgment under federal law; notwith standing any other federal law, judgment imposing fine may be enforced against all property or rights to property of person fined, except that prope rty exempt from levy for taxes pursuant to § 6334(a)(1)-(8), (10), and (12) shall be exempt from enforcement of judgment; in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3664(m)(1)(A), all provisions of this section are available to United States for enfo rcement of order of restitution). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny appellee’s pending motion to supplement the record on appeal.

______________________________
Docket No: FAA-2016-0457 Dir ID: 2015-NM-084-AD

Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed? 

Organization Person Contacted Date Response 

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 6/3/15

Regional Airline Association 6/3/15

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 6/3/15

Airlines for America Robert Ireland 6/3/15
Exhibit 32.1

Certification by the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Genzyme Corporation (the "Company"), hereby
certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ HENRI A. TERMEER Chief Executive OfficerFebruary 27, 2009


---



QuickLinks
**Exhibit 31.1**SELECT MEDICAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION AND SELECT MEDICAL CORPORATIONCERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERI, Robert A. Ortenzio, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Select Medical HoldingsCorporation and Select Medical Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrants as of, and for, theperiods presented in this quarterly report;  4. The registrants’ other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrants and we have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrants, including their consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants’ disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisquarterly report based on such evaluation; and  d) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrants’internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants’most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrants’ internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrants’ other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants’auditors and the audit committee of the registrants’ board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrants’ ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrants’ internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: November 13, 2007   /s/ Robert A. Ortenzio Robert A. Ortenzio  Chief Executive Officer  Select Medical Holdings Corporation and Select Medical Corporation
1The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Franklin L.

Noel, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-2541

___________

Barbara J. Ochoa, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Kenneth S. Apfel, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: September 7, 1999

 Filed: September 10, 1999

___________

Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Barbara Ochoa appeals the district court’s1 grant of summary judgment in favor

of the Commissioner of Social Security, upholding the Commissioner&s decision to deny

Ochoa&s application for disability insurance benefits. Having carefully reviewed the

record, we conclude substantial evidence on the record as a whole supported the

Commissioner’s decision that Ochoa was not disabled within the meaning of the Social
-2-

Security Act, and we affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons set forth

in the magistrate judge’s report, which the district court adopted. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.