alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Or , Page 1 of 1
AUG 3 0 2011 REC-JQ0%G)-/0
LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION
PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS As of: August 30, 2011
Received: August 14, 2011

Status: Posted

PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: August 30, 2011

Tracking No. 80ee0a53
‘Comments Due: September 30, 2011
Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0017
Requirement for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers to Provide Coverage of
Preventive Services under the PatientProtection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0017-0038
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services
under Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment

Document: IRS-2010-0017-0041
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Uri knewa | Submitter Information

General Comment

This is not appropriate or resonable for government to mandate this to anyone in our society. Birth
control pills are not medically necessary and pregnancy is not a disease or an accident.
Remember, your mother was prolife. If not parents then society should be teaching responsible
methods of birthcontrol that promote health and respect. Birth control pills are already available,
and if that is the method a women chooses then she should be responsible for her decision and
either pay for them herself or find another alternative that is already available. To say that
religious institutions that are abundant and provide the community with it's healthcare should be
providing this is against there beliefs and if they were to close there doors or sell facilities because
of a mandate THEN society would surely be lost.

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectId=0900... 8/30/2011
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                                   Vicom, Inc.



                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 this Annual Report Form 10-K, Vicom, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended December 31, 2002, I, James L. Mandel, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

1.   This Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
     or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
     and
2.   The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Company.


Date: March 31, 2003                By: /s/ James L. Mandel
                                        ------------------------------------
                                        Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

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

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, each ofthe undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report of NetBank,Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 
| Date: November 14, 2005               |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                                  |   |
| /s/ Douglas K. Freeman                |   |   |
| Chairman and Chief  Executive Officer |   |
|                                  |   |
| /s/ Steven F. Herbert                 |   |   |
| Chief Finance Executive               |   |

 

 

----
From: MYERSM770@AOL.COM

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:15:01 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,

wanda myers

Maryville, TN 37803
EXHIBIT 32.1

Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer

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 year ended December 31, 2003 (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. TERMEERHenri A. Termeer Chief Executive
OfficerMarch 15, 2004 |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---

QuickLinks
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Alternative Teacher CertificationElementary Secondary EducationHigher EducationNontraditional EducationPreservice Teacher EducationTeacher RecruitmentTeachers

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
## United States Court of Appeals
**For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________

No. 21

- 2722

___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Michael Lee Bevins

Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

____________

Submitted: March 2 , 2022 Filed: March 10, 2022 [Unpublished]

____________
Before BENTON, KELLY, and KOBES , Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Michael Lee Bevins appeals after the district court 1 revoked his term of supervised release. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.-2- On appeal, Bevins argues the district court erred in finding that a preponderance of the evidence showed he violated his conditions of supervision.
T his court finds no basis for reversal. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (court may revoke supervised release if it finds by preponderance of evidence that defendant violated conditions of supervised release); United States v. Miller , 557 F.3d 910, 913

- 14 (8th Cir. 2009) (this court reviews decision to revoke supervised release for abuse of discretion, and underlying factual findings as to whether a violation occurred for clear error; district court need find only one violation to revoke supervised release);
United States v. Black Bear , 542 F.3d 249, 252 (8th Cir. 2008) (under clear error review, this court may reverse only if it has a definite and firm conviction that district court was mistaken); cf. United States v. Asalati , 615 F.3d 1001, 1005 (8th Cir. 2010) (witness credibility determinations, reviewed for clear error, are “virtually unreviewable” on appeal).

The judgment of the distr ict court is affirmed.

______________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-1999
<CASH>                                              97,700
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      476,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                        28,400
<INVENTORY>                                        301,600
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   907,900
<PP&E>                                             602,800
<DEPRECIATION>                                     243,500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,804,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              601,900
<BONDS>                                          2,472,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 1
<OTHER-SE>                                      (1,541,400)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,804,700
<SALES>                                          1,446,900
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,446,900
<CGS>                                              510,600
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      510,600
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     6,400
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 158,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (249,600)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         5,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (255,200)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (255,200)
<EPS-BASIC>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0


</TABLE>
'j

REG IONAl '<.....

AIRPO~T

\\j:. \ \ :'

\

MID-OHIO VALLEY REGIONAL AIRPORT

PO Box 4089, Parkersburg, WV 26104 P: 304.464.S113 F: 304.464.5112 \fIIWwJlymov com

June 12,2014

Mr. Michael Gormas

Office of Aviation Analysis

US Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Order 2014-3-12, Docket OST-2005-20734

Dear Mr. Gormas:

.,.';:'-

j

In response to your email ofMay28,2014requestingcommentson all Essential Air Ser'Vi'ce

proposal for the Mid Ohio Valley Regional Airport, we have reviewed the bids and we support

the selection of Silver Airways.

The Silver Airways bid of 18 flights a week. two non-stop and one one-stop round trips each

weekday, to Washington Dulles International Airport best meets the needs of our community.

Although we benefit greatly from our present flight frequency (we have four daily weekday

flights with 19 passenger aircraft), the 34 seat Saab aircraft will enhance passenger convenience

and give our airport true passenger growth potential. In addition, Silver's codeshare arrangement

with United Airlines and numerous interline agreements with other air carriers were key factors

in our decision. Lastly, Washington Dulles, being a United Airlines hub, provides our

community with the greatest number of non-stop destinations; over 80 domestic and 40

international.

We are grateful for the other bids that we received utilizing the Pittsburgh Airport as the hub

airport. Pittsburgh has been a key airport in our history. However, at this point in time,

Pittsburgh does not have a hub airline that would provide the destination opportunities that our

community has grown accustomed to by flying through Cleveland.

Also, we want to thank the three other airlines that bid on our service, Boutique Air, City Link

Air and Sun Air. We are happy to see other airlines interest in the Essential Air Service program.

Their lack of codeshare and interline agreements were a major negative to us. Without these

arrangements, passengers from our community would have faced many challenges in Pittsburgh,

whether it was in transfer of baggage on connecting flights or potentially having to go in and out

of security if a flight connection is missed. Also, we were not confident that the airlines could

handle the start-up of new service to all of the cities they bid. We have endured that problem

before when a new airline was awarded our service bid and never provided the service. It took

us many years to recover from the total disruption of service and resultant loss of passengers.

We applaud the efforts of these airlines but, at this time, feel Silver Airways is the best option for

our community.
Accordingly, I request that the Silver Airways, 18 flights a week option to Washington Dulles

International Airport, be awarded the Essential Air Service contract for the Mid Ohio Valley

Regional Airport.

Sincerely,

1Jd~or1.)x:;tA

President

Mid Ohio Valley Regional Airport Authority
#            

# CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

POWERNOTES (R)

With Maturities of 9 months or more from Date of Issue

Registration No.  333-109182

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (3)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO.  477                                                                   Trade Date:  09/02/04

(To Prospectus Supplement dated November 6, 2003 &

  Prospectus dated October 15,2003)                                                              Issue Date:   09/10/04

The Date of this Pricing SupplementSeptember 02, 2004

SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION OR REPAYMENT

 CUSIP                                                                                                                                   Date and terms of redemption or

     or       Stated                                                                  Interest                                       repayment (includingany

Common  Interest                      Price to  Discounts &        Payment     Survivors                  applicable regular or special

  Code      Rate (1)   Maturity  Public (2) Commissions       Frequency       Option  Yes/No     record dates)

14911QVW8  4.25%        03/15/12        100%                1.29%                  Monthly                      YES         NO                                                                

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

Principal                                                                                 1st Payment             Day         

Amount                  Proceeds                  Dealer                           Date                   Count

$659,000.00            $650,498.90            ABN AMROInc.        10/15/04               30/360    

Original Issue DiscountNote:                                                                          Total Amount of OID:

____  Yes                X   No                                                                                  N/A

The interest rates on the PowerNotes (R) may be changed by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation from time to time, but any such change will not affect the interest rate on any PowerNotes (R) offered prior to the effective date of the change.  Prior to the date of this Pricing Supplement, $153.228 mm principal amount of the PowerNotes (R) were sold at interest rates then in effect.  Subsequent offerings of PowerNotes (R) will be made under the Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated October 15,2003.

Expressed as a percentage of aggregate principal amount.  Actual Price to Public may be less, and will be determined by prevailing market prices at the time of purchase as set forth in the confirmation sheet.
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (2.82 MB)
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### January 8, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 135090 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### GRIEVANCE ADMINISTRATOR, Petitioner-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 135090 ADB No.: 05-79-GA CARL M. WEIDEMAN, III, Respondent-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

By order of October 26, 2007, this Co urt granted immediate consideration and denied a stay. On order of the Court, the a pplication for leave to appeal is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the que stions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

l1217 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 8, 2008

Clerk
#### SAIEK v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO.

(Circuit Court, E. D. New York.

December 27, 1911.)

Removal of Causes (§ 42*) — Employer’s Liability Act — Amendment.

Act Cong. April 5, 1910, c. 143, § 3, 30 Stat. 291, amending Employer’s Liability Act April 22, 1908, c. 149, § 6. 35 Suit. «<i (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 1373), provides that the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States over an action under such act shall be concurrent with that of the courts of the several states, and that no case arising thereunder and brought in any state court of competent jurisdiction shall be removed to any court of the United States. *Held,*that such act repealed so much of Removal Act March 3, 1875, c. 137, 18 Stat. 470 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 508), as authorized removal of causes brought under the employer's liability act, and that such an action involving more than $2,000 could not l:e removed for diversity of citizenship.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Removal of Causes, Dee. Dig. § 42.*)

At Law. Action by Joseph Saiek against the Pennsylvania Railroad Company tinder Employer’s Liability Act April 22, 1908, as amended by Act Cong. April 5, 1910. On motion to remand.

Granted.

McDowell & Kennedy, for plaintiff.

Btirlingham, Montgomery & Beecher, for defendant.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to dato, *&*Rep’r Indexes

CHATFIELD, District Judge.

The motion to remand must be granted. Repeal by implication must result, where no other intent can be inferred which will harmonize with the prior statute. In this case jurisdiction is given the state courts by Act April 5, 1910, c. 143, 36 Stat. 291, amending Act April 22, 1908, c. 149, 35 Stat. 65. By the amendment of April 5, 1910, original jurisdiction is given to the Circuit Courts of more districts than under prior existing law, and removal of *all*suits under *this*law to the United'States court — i. e., “the court of the proper district” — -is prohibited.

This is plain language and must be respected. Sections 1 and 2, c. 137, Act March *3,*1875, are modified or limited thereby.

> *Note.*— Action brought in New York Supreme Court, Richmond County, charging negligence wilhin the provisions of Employer’s Liability Act April 22, 3908. as amended by Act April 5, 1910. Removed to the United States court upon November 8, 3913. Motion to remand, on ground" iliat removal of such action was prohibited by the above statute. Opposed upon the theory that the removal act of March 3, 1875, was not repealed by the act of April 5, 1930, with respect to causes removable for other reasons than that they arose under the provisions of a law of the United *States; the*particular point as to the present case being that removal upon grounds of diversity of citizenship, in a case involving more than ¡¡>2,000, was still possible under the general statute of 1875.
Order entered January 6, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 20
- 00826
- CR
EX PARTE KOFFI SEMEG NON DOKE On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court Collin Coun ty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 366
- 80876
- 2013
ORDER Appellant is appealing the trial court’s order denying his post

- conviction application for writ of habeas corpus. On September 18, 2020, the Court issued a scheduling order that directed the trial cour t to file a certification of appellant’s right to appeal with the clerk’s record. The clerk’s record filed on October 5, 2020 d oes not contain the trial court’s certification. On November 6, 2020, the Court again ordered the trial court to prepare and file a certification of the right to appeal. To date, no certification has been filed.
We ORDER the trial court to file, by January 22 , 202 1 , a certification of appellant’s right to appeal the denial of his post

- conviction writ application.– 2

– We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to transmit cop ies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the Honorable Tom Nowak, Presiding Judge , 366th Judicial District Court; and to counsel for the parties. /s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE