alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: EZASSURANCE@AOL.COM

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:47:10 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,

PHILLIP HIGHTOWER

Dublin, GA 31021
From: ellen.bendel@bluemail.ch

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:35:48 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,

Ellen Bendel

New York, NY 10025
From: Sue Dean

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Womens preventive health care

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 8:33:25 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.
a iA N26 ,
PEC [RLIU TO auG 3 1 2011
2. VISION

PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS As of: August 31, 2011
BRANCH Received: August 15, 2011
Status: Posted
PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: August 31, 2011
Tracking No. 80ce19cd
‘Comments Due: September 30, 2011
Submission Type: Web

Page 1 of 1

Docket: [RS-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-2010-0017-0093
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: marilyn evenson
Address:

tacoma, WA, 98445
Email: lowrider3111@yahoo.com
Submitter's Representative: adam smith
Government Agency Type: Federal
Government Agency: HHS

General Comment

Thank you for the new rule that women do not have to co-pay for birth control. Please make this
option available for all women, even those without health insurance. An unwanted pregnancy with
an unwanted child is a tragedy & a hardship on an already economically poor family.

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectld=0900..._ 8/31/2011
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 20, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40768

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAIME GUEL-ESCOBEDO, also known as Jose Martinez-Mendoza

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:03-CR-1896-1

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Jaime Guel-Escobedo has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Guel-Escobedo has not filed a response. Our independent

review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for

appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
II

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1376

To amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to ensure that

Medicare+Choice eligible individuals have sufficient time to consider

information and to make an informed choice regarding enrollment in

a Medicare+Choice plan.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

AUGUST 3, 2001

Mr. NELSON of Florida introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act

to ensure that Medicare+Choice eligible individuals have

sufficient time to consider information and to make an

informed choice regarding enrollment in a

Medicare+Choice plan.

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 ‘‘Medicare Beneficiary

5 Information Provision Act of 2001’’.
2

•S 1376 IS

1 SEC. 2. IMPROVEMENTS TO PROVISION OF INFORMATION

2 TO PROMOTE INFORMED CHOICE.

3 (a) EARLIER OPEN SEASON NOTIFICATION.—Section

4 1851(d)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.

5 1395w–21(d)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘At least 15

6 days before’’ and inserting ‘‘At least 45 days (in the case

7 of 2001, 30 days) before’’.

8 (b) ENSURING MAINTENANCE OF PRINTED MATE9 RIALS.—Section 1851(d)(5) of the Social Security Act (42

10 U.S.C. 1395w–21(d)(5)) is amended by striking ‘‘The Sec11 retary shall maintain’’ and inserting ‘‘In addition to mail12 ing the information under this section in printed form to

13 each Medicare+Choice eligible individual, the Secretary

14 shall maintain’’.

15 (c) PROVIDING SUFFICIENT TIME FOR ADEQUATE

16 REVIEW OF PROPOSED PREMIUMS AND RELATED INFOR17 MATION.—Section 1854(a)(5) of the Social Security Act

18 (42 U.S.C. 1395w–24(a)(5)) is amended by adding at the

19 end the following new subparagraph:

20 ‘‘(C) DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF RE21 VIEWABLE MATERIALS.—The Secretary—

22 ‘‘(i) may only review the rates,

23 amounts, and values described in subpara24 graph (A) that are received by the Sec25 retary on or before July 1 of the year pre-
3

•S 1376 IS

1 ceding the year for which such rates,

2 amounts, and values are to apply;

3 ‘‘(ii) shall be deemed to have dis4 approved any rate, amount, or value sub5 mitted after such date; and

6 ‘‘(iii) may not permit a

7 Medicare+Choice organization to resubmit,

8 amend, or otherwise modify such rates,

9 amounts, or values after such date.’’.

10 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—

11 (1) IN GENERAL.—The amendments made by

12 subsections (a) and (b) shall take effect on the date

13 of enactment of this Act.

14 (2) DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF REVIEW15 ABLE MATERIALS.—The amendment made by sub16 section (c) shall apply with respect to years begin17 ning after 2001.

Æ
Exhibit






EXHIBIT 10(e)(25)
AMENDMENT NO. 2
TO THE
XEROX CORPORATION
2004 PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN


2012 AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT


WITNESSETH:


WHEREAS, Xerox Corporation (the “Company”) has established the Xerox Corporation 2004 Performance Incentive Plan, which is presently set forth in the 2012 Amendment and Restatement as amended by Amendment No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “Plan”), and


WHEREAS the Company desires to amend the Plan,


NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is amended as follows: 


(1)Section 5(a) is amended to delete the first sentence thereof and to add in its place the following:


“A total number of approximately 58 million (58,000,000) (as of December 31, 2015, a total number of approximately 41.5 million (41,500,000)) shares of common stock, par value $1.00 per share, of the Company (“Common Stock”) are available for issuance under the Plan.”


(2)(a)    Section 7(b) is amended to delete the last two sentences thereof and to add in its place the following:


“Other than pursuant to Section 6, the Committee shall not without the approval of the Company’s shareholders (a) lower the exercise price per share of a Stock Option after it is granted, (b) cancel a Stock Option when the exercise price per share exceeds the Fair Market Value of one share in exchange for cash or another award (other than in connection with a Change in Control), or (c) take any other action with respect to a Stock Option that would be treated as a repricing under the rules and regulations of the New York Stock Exchange. The Company may not repurchase a Stock Option for value (in cash, substitutions, cash buyouts or otherwise) from a Stock Option-holder if the current Fair Market Value of the shares underlying the Stock Option is lower than the exercise price per share of the Stock Option. The foregoing two sentences are collectively referred to herein as the “Repricing Prohibition”.”


(b)    Section 7(c) is amended to delete the last two sentences thereof and to add in its place the following:


“Notwithstanding any provision of the Plan to the contrary, the Repricing Prohibition described above shall also apply to SARs on the same basis as it does to Stock Options.”


(3)Section 8 is amended to add the following sentence to the end thereof:


“Notwithstanding the above, no dividend equivalents will be paid on unearned performance-based shares.”


This Amendment is effective as of the date hereof. In all other respects, the Plan shall remain unchanged.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be signed as of this 24th day of February, 2016.


    
	
	
	XEROX CORPORATION

	 

	By: /s/ Darrell L. Ford

	Senior Vice President and         Chief Human Resources Officer
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**








CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002











In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Vail Banks, Inc. (the "Company") on
      Form
      10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gary S. Judd, Chief
      Executive Officer and President (principal executive officer) of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                and





2.
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company.











/s/
      Gary S.
      Judd





Gary
      S.
      Judd


Chief
      Executive Officer and President


August
      12, 2005
<PAGE>
                                   EXHIBIT 99B

                               CCFNB BANCORP, INC.

                          CEO CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Annual Report of CCFNB Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year-ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lance
O. Diehl, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

      1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      2.    The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
            of the Company.

<TABLE>
<S>                                             <C>
Date: March 27, 2003                            /s/ Lance O. Diehl
                                                ------------------------------
                                                Lance O. Diehl
                                                Chief Executive Officer
</TABLE>


                                       73
#### GEER, EXECUTOR, et al. *v.*BOWERS, TAX COMMISSIONER OF OHIO.

No. 304.

Decided October 22, 1962.

*H. Herschel Hunt*for appellants.

*Mark McElroy,*Attorney General of Ohio, and *Theodore R. Saker*and *Joseph L. White,*Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.
No. 116, Misc.

#### Huntley *v.*New York.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Frank S. Hogan*and *H. Richard Uviller*for respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York. Certiorari denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6868

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

XAVIER MARCELLUS PAUL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (1:98-cr-00192-JCC-4)

Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: January 19, 2011

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Xavier Marcellus Paul, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph Leiser, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Xavier Marcellus Paul appeals the district court’s 

order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) motion. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United 

States v. Paul, No. 1:98-cr-00192-JCC-4 (E.D. Va. June 10, 

2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Healthcare
Services Group, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Daniel P. McCartney, Chief Executive Officer of the of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) That information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



                                                /s/ Daniel P. McCartney
                                                ---------------------------
                                                Daniel P. McCartney
                                                Chief Executive Officer
                                                February 14, 2006
Exhibit 32





Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§ 1350)





The undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of StellarOne Corporation, respectively, certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, which accompanies this certification fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of StellarOne Corporation at the dates and for the periods indicated.  The foregoing certification is made pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), and no purchaser or seller of securities or any other person shall be entitled to rely upon the foregoing certification for any purpose.  The undersigned expressly disclaim any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.










Date: May 10, 2010


/s/ O. R. Barham, Jr.President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Jeffrey W. FarrarExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
file:///C|/..._List_29-08-2011_12-55-54-352/Document%20List%2029-08-2011%2012-55-54-352_docs/EBSA-2010-0018-DRAFT-0054.html[8/29/2011 2:37:40 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: August 29, 2011

Received: August 24, 2011

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 80eeb3df

Comments Due: September 30, 2011

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0018

Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of

Preventive Services Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0018-0002

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services under

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment

Document: EBSA-2010-0018-DRAFT-0054

Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: Kelly S.

Address:

Littleton, Colorado,

General Comment

What will happen with this limited religious exemption will be that employers will start firing

employees when they find out they have used their insurance to purchase birth control or abortion

pills! Do you think a woman would rather have someone buy birth control pills and abortion pills for

her or would she rather have a job?
Merrimack,

June, 1895.

#### Nebonne *v.*Concord Railroad.

In an action for personal injuries, the exhibition to the jury of some of the plaintiff’s toes which had been amputated in consequence of the accident may be competent evidence.

A physician may properly be allowed to testify that the plaintiff’s damage, resulting from the loss of some of his toes on one foot, would be enhanced by the fact that the injured leg was shorter than the other.

Case', for personal injuries. Verdict for the plaintiff. The plaintiff was run over by one of the defendants’ cars, and in consequence of the accident it became necessary to amputate some of the toes on his left foot. The amputated parts, preserved in spirits in a glass jar, were exhibited to the jury, and the defendants excepted. The plaintiff also exhibited his naked foot to the jury.

The plaintiff’s left leg had been from his birth a little shorter than the other. His attending physician was allowed to testify, subject to exception, that the damage resulting from the removal of the toes from the left foot would be greater than it would be if the leg had been a perfect one, on account of increased inconvenience and irritation experienced in walking.

*Albín Martin*and *Frank N. Parsons,*for the plaintiff.

*Frank 8. Streeter,*for the defendants.

*Per Curiam****

The exhibition of the amputated toes to the jury may have been competent evidence of the nature of the accident and the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries. The case does not show that the evidence was incompetent. If the offer to exhibit the toes was not made for the purpose of proving some disputed fact material to the issue, the exhibition should not have been allowed. *Louisville & N. R. R.*v. *Pearson,*97 Ala. 211.

The physician was properly allowed to testify that the plaintiff’s injury was enhanced by reason of a natural defect in his leg and to state the reasons for that opinion. The fact that that was one of the points in issue did not render the evidence incompetent. *Gault*v. *Concord Railroad,*63 N. H. 356. The subject of inquiry was one upon which a physician, from his peculiar study and practice, is presumed to have more accurate knowl*297edge than men in general. *Page*v. *Parker,*40 N. H. 47; *Jones*v. Tucker, 41 N. H. 546.

*jExceptions overruled.*

Chase, Wallace, and Parsons, JJ., did not sit: the others concurred.

*

 See foot-note on page 22.