alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: cprov356@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

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

J.R. Baumgarn

Bethel, MN 55005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           1,178
<SECURITIES>                                        51
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,267
<ALLOWANCES>                                       180
<INVENTORY>                                        451
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,298
<PP&E>                                          50,059
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,234
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,568
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,441
<BONDS>                                          8,116
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,009
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,240
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    32,568
<SALES>                                            436
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,040
<CGS>                                              769
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,791
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,470
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   254
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 721
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,608
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,745
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,863
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,863
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.87
        

</TABLE>
From: willk_98@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:06:31 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,

William King

Isom, KY 41824
From: vray5k@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:43:34 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,

Ray McPherson

Wenatchee, WA 98801
Dennis DeVany 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Aviation Analysis, X-53 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

At the March 11, 2015 meeting, the Hall County Airport Authority Board from the Central 

Nebraska Regional Airport (GRI) adopted Resolution 15-25 Essential Air Service (EAS) 

Request for Grand Island, NE to the following destination: 

Air service with American Airlines to provide 13 non-stop round trips per week on a (44 

or 50 seat) regional jet from the Central Nebraska Regional Airport in Grand Island, NE 

(GRI) to Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) in Dallas/Fort Worth, TX. 

The Airport Authority would like to thank the Department of Transportation for the 

opportunity to submit our request to the preferred hub and aircraft type. 

Enclosed is a copy of Resolution 15-25 from the Hall County Airport Authority Board, a 

letter of support and Resolution 2015-83 from the City of Grand Island's Mayor and City 

Council, and a Resolution from the Grand Island Chamber of Commerce Board of 

Directors. 

Sincerely submitted, 

HALL COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY 

son, AAE 

Executive Director 

MJO:dkp 

Enclosures 

3855 Sky Park Road I Grand Island, NE 68801 I Office (308) 385-5170 I Fax (308) 385-51791 FlyGrandlsland.com 
AUTHORITY ACTION TAKEN: Resolution being the Hall County Airport Authority makes the following recommendation to the Department of Transportation (DOT) for air 

service at the Central Nebraska Regional Airport under the EAS program: 

Air service with American Airlines to provide 13 nonstop round trips per week on a (44 

or 50 seat) regional jet from the Central Nebraska Regional Airport in Grand Island, NE 

(GRI) to Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) in Dallas/Fort Worth, TX. 

The term is a two-year period from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2017 with an annual 

Federal subsidy of $1 ,270,707.00. 

The Hall County Airport Authority agrees to waive the right to hold in American Airlines 

upon issuance of 120 days notice to terminate service. 

n, Executive Director
```

[Federal Register: June 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 116)]
[Notices]               
[Page 34448]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17jn10-63]                         

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0282; FRL-8832-4]

 
Pesticides; Draft Guidance for Pesticide Registrants on False or 
Misleading Pesticide Product Brand Names; Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA issued a notice in the Federal Register of May 19, 2010, 
announcing the availability of and seeking public comment on a draft 
Pesticide Registration Notice (PR Notice) entitled ``False or 
Misleading Pesticide Product Brand Names.'' This document extends the 
comment period for 60 days, from June 18, 2010, to August 17, 2010.

DATES: Comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-
HQ-OPP-2010-0282, must be received on or before August 17, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions as provided under ADDRESSES 
in the Federal Register document of May 19, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Kempter, Antimicrobials Division 
(7510P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone 
number: (703) 305-5448; fax number: (703) 308-6467; e-mail address: 
kempter.carlton@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document extends the public comment 
period established in the Federal Register of May 19, 2010 (75 FR 
28012) (FRL-8824-8). In that document, the Agency announced the 
availability of and sought public comment on a draft Pesticide 
Registration Notice (PR Notice) entitled ``False or Misleading 
Pesticide Product Brand Names.'' EPA is hereby extending the comment 
period, which was set to end on June 18, 2010, to August 17, 2010.
    To submit comments, or access the docket, please follow the 
detailed instructions as provided under ADDRESSES in the May 19, 2010 
Federal Register document. If you have questions, consult the person 
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: June 11, 2010.
Steven Bradbury,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 2010-14656 Filed 6-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          24,733
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,838
<ALLOWANCES>                                       891
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         332,068
<DEPRECIATION>                                  56,837
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 319,535
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        222,029
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            39
<OTHER-SE>                                      86,494
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   319,535
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                54,462
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,424
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,578
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,337
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,765
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,599
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,599
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,599
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.22
        

</TABLE>
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****High performance computingmodernization program, modernization plan.**
 
1994 | 1997 | 1998
2000 | 2002
 
SuDoc:D 1.106:
Item Number:0307-A (online)
CGP systemNumber:000573107
 
November 6, 2017
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENTS
OF INCOME OF JOURNAL REGISTER COMPANY FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1999, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                   1,000

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                               4,791
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                       64,528
<ALLOWANCES>                         6,319
<INVENTORY>                          7,794
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    79,255
<PP&E>                             237,628
<DEPRECIATION>                     136,811
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     664,507
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               56,388
<BONDS>                            748,425
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<COMMON>                               484
<OTHER-SE>                        (227,994)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       664,507
<SALES>                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   231,068
<CGS>                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      132,372
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    14,509
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     2,187
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  26,217
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     36,494
<INCOME-TAX>                        14,702
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 21,792
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                        21,792
<EPS-BASIC>                         0.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                         0.46



</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Compulsory Judicial Settlement, etc., of the Executors of JOHN COLLINS, Deceased.

*Practice*— when *an appeal ioill not lie from an.interlocutory order of the surrogate.*

A witness having refused to answer a question put to him upon a hearing before a referee, appointed by a surrogate to take .testimony and report the same to 1dm, in proceedings instituted to procure the settlement of the accounts of an executor, an order was made by the surrogate directing the witness to answer the question before the referee, reserving all. questions respecting the competency of the proposed testimony until the coming in of the referee’s report.

Held, that an appeal from the order was premature; that if the ruling was erroneous, the error would be corrected on an appeal from the final decree.

Appeal from an order of the surrogate of Kings county, directing a witness to answer a question put'to him on his examination before a referee.

*M. B.*Hoxie, for the executors, appellants.

*Julius JJ.*Seymour, for the petitioner, respondent.

Dykman, J.:

This is an appeal from an order of the surrogate of Kings county, directing a witness to answer a question propounded to him before a referee. The proceeding was inaugurated for the settlement of the accounts of the executors of John Collins, deceased. One of the executors died, and when this proceeding was instituted, the surrogate appointed a referee to take testimony and report the same to him. Andrew G. Collins, a son of the testator, was appointed *404an executor and received letters testamentary on the attainment- of his majority, and he was called as a witness before the referee and requested to read from an account book kept by the deceased executor, O’Leary. Objection was interposed by the counsel for the executor, which was overruled by the referee. The witness refused to answer the question. Thereupon an order was obtained from the surrogate requiring the witness to show cause before him, on a certain day, why he should not be punished for contempt, and on the return day of that order to show cause the surrogate made an order directing the witness to answer the question before the referee, and reserving all questions respecting the competency of the proposed testimony until the coming in of the referee’s report. From that order we have this appeal, which is plainly premature. Interlocutory rulings, respecting the admission or exclusion of testimony on the trial of a cause, cannot be reviewed separately as they are made. The order appealed from directs the witness to answer a question before the referee, and does no more and has no greater effect than the ruling of the referee in favor of the admission of the testimony. If the ruling be erroneous, the error is to be corrected on appeal from the final decree, when all the questions presented by the recorded will fall legitimately under review.

The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Barnard, P. J., and Cullen, J., concurred.

Order of surrogate of Kings county affirmed, with costs.
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Compliance (Legal)Conflict ResolutionDisabilitiesDisciplineDue ProcessEarly InterventionEducation Work RelationshipEducational AssessmentEducational LegislationElementary Secondary EducationFederal LegislationFederal RegulationIndividualized Education ProgramsIndividualized Transition PlansOutcomes of EducationParent ParticipationPreschool EducationStudent Educational ObjectivesTeacher EducationTransitional Programs

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Identifiers - Laws, Policies, & Programs:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
From: pegnbob@fairpoint.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:41:08 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,

Robert Garrett

Augusta, ME 04330