alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 t h 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 th Cir. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

___________________________

No. 00-30962 Summary Calendar

___________________________
JAMES M. ROBERTSON, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

___________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

(98-CV-463)

___________________________________________________ March 16, 2001 Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
For essentially the reasons stated by the district court in its Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment of January 18, 2000, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
AFFIRMED.
#### Julia E. Hooghkirk, Respondent, v. The President, etc., of the Delaware and Hudson Canal Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order reversed, new trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Landon, J.
From: jeff9finger@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:32:47 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,

Jeffrey Haynes

Austin, TX 78749
From: khahnel@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:32:17 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,

Kimberly Sheffield

Denver, CO 80226
From: STEFANIE L JOHNSON

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Institute of Medicine Recommendations

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 5:55:23 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.

-- 

Stefanie L. Johnson

School of Tourism and Hospitality Management

Sport & Recreation Management

Temple University

stefanie.johnson@temple.edu
No. 345, Misc.

#### Marro et al. *v.*New York.

Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, Third Judicial Department. Certiorari denied.
From: pjg58@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:58:25 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,

Philip Gustin

Wichita, KS 67230
Statement of Edward Perry on EPA's Clean Power Plan Proposed Rule for Existing Power Plants

My name is Edward Perry; I am an aquatic biologist working with the National Wildlife Federation on their global warming campaign.

For many, global warming is some event that is supposed to happen many years in the future, but as a life long fisherman and hunter, I and many of us who enjoy the outdoors can tell you that global warming is here, now, and is already affecting our fish and wildlife heritage.

According to the best science, our state fish, the brook trout, our state tree, the hemlock, and our state bird, the ruffed grouse are on their way out of Pennsylvania. Instead of getting late winter/early spring snowfalls like we used to get, we're now getting torrential downpours that drench grouse fledglings, causing hypothermia and death. In the past 30 years, Pennsylvania has lost over 28,000 breeding males, which has greatly affected grouse populations. Warmer winters are allowing wooly adelgid populations to proliferate, and they're decimating hemlocks all across the northeast part of our country. Hemlocks provide important thermal cover for brook trout during the heat of summer, so as the hemlocks go, so go our state fish. We've already lost over 35% of Pennsylvania's brook trout habitat and the forecast is for it to be gone from the state by the year 2100.

Let's look at what is happening right now. These are not projections; these are facts. We have had 350 consecutive months where the global average temperature has been above the long-term average, and 10 of the hottest years on record have all occurred in the last 15 years. If you are less than 30 years old, you've never had a month or year where the temperature was less than the long term global average. Sea level is rising, causing islands in the Pacific to go underwater. Glaciers around the world are melting; the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are breaking up at unprecedented rates; and the Arctic sea ice is at its all time lowest level in human history. Parts of our southwest are in the midst of a 14 yearlong drought, which many scientists believe may be the new normal, and which has spawned raging wildfires. There have only been 3 times in the last 50 years when more than 9 million acres have burned, and they've all been in the last 6 years. And finally, our weather has become far more extreme, devastating our communities and causing our government to spend billions in disaster relief. We simply cannot let that
continue.

These trends should be our canary in the coalmine that we ignore at our peril. We have a moral imperative to tackle global climate change and not pass this problem on to our kids and grandkids. This is why I strongly support your rule to rein in carbon pollution from existing power plants. But given the speed of the changes and the gravity of the situation, I hope you are not too late.
RHODE ISLAND 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 

%7 

235 Promenade Street, Providence, R102908-5767 TDD 401-222-4462 

10 September 2008 

David Conroy 

EPA - New England, Region I 

1 Congress Street, Suite 1100 

Boston, MA 02114-2023 

Dear Mr. Conroy: 

As you are aware, sections 110(a) (1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) provide procedural, 

timing and infrastructure : equirements related to compliance with National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS). In 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) entered into a 

Consent Decree with Earth Justice which obligates EPA to determine whether states have made 

the submissions necessary to meet the 110(a)(1) and (2) requirements for the PMZ,5 NAAQS by 5 

October 2008 . To meet this obligation, EPA issued a guidance memo on 2 October 2007 

directing states to review their existing ozone State Implementation Plans (SIPs) and, if the 

existing SIP is adequate to meet the 110(a) requirements, to certify that adequacy in a letter to 

the EPA. This letter will serve as the required certification for Rhode Island . 

The guidance memo identifies fourteen elements required under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2). 

Those elements and the sections of the Rhode Island program that are consistent with those 

elements are identified in the attached table. The Rhode Island SIP, which was approved in May 

1972, and its numerous subsequent revisions fulfill most of these requirements . Other Section 110(a)(2) requirements are fulfilled in Section 23-23 of the Rhode Island General Laws (RIGL) 

and in the Rhode Island Air Pollution Control Regulations (APCR) that have been incorporated 

into or submitted to the EPA for incorporation into the Rhode Island SIP. 

If you have any questions, please contact Barbara Morin of my staff at (401) 222-4700, 

extension 7012. 

, -, 

Stephen Majkut, Chief 

Office of Air Resources 

cc . Anne Arnold, EPA Region I 

ow " ?Il''f rnt-, ontiurncr filler
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       NOV-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          DEC-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            NOV-30-1999
<CASH>                                        2385)
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 79935
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                   10567
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              90502
<PP&E>                                      2982608
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1538322)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              2758988
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       3500038
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                   44454365
<OTHER-SE>                                        0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                2758988
<SALES>                                      127940
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             127940
<CGS>                                        227442
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                254242
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            1323089
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1449391)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               0
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1449391)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0



</TABLE>
#### Bowles' Admr. v. Harvey.

(Decided November 19, 1920.)

Appeal from Rockcastle Circuit Court.

1. Cancellation of Instruments—Fraud—Deeds—Support of Grantor. —In a suit to set aside a deed executed in consideration of tbe grantor’s support, evidence examined and held insufficient to show that the deed was obtained by fraud.

2. Cancellation of Instruments—Deeds—Support of Grantor—Failure of Consideration.—One who conveys his land to another in consideration of support cannot claim a failure of considei’ation where he alone is responsible for the grantee’s failure to carry out the agreement.

L. W. BBTHURUM for appellant.

C. C. WILLIAMS for appellee.

Opinion op the Court by

William Rogers Clay, Commissioner

Affirming.

On April 25, 1916, D. Gr. Bowles, in consideration of boarding and waiting.on Mm during the remainder of Ms life, .conveyed to Ms daughter, Mollie Harvey, a tract of about 127 acres of land located in Rockcastle county. After remaining with his daughter for several months, he brought suit to set aside the conveyance on the ground of fraud and failure of consideration. Prom a judgment denying the relief prayed for, this appeal is prosecuted.

The evidence shows that the land was worth from $3.00 to $4.00 an acre, and D. Gr. Bowles’ board was worth about $20.00 a month. Bowles testified that his agreement with Ms daughter was that she was to have the use of the land during Ms lifetime, in consideration of her boarding him and taking care of him during that time, and that he was drinking when he sign'ed the deed and did not know that the contract which he signed was a deed, but believed it was a contract drawn in accordance with his agreement with his daughter. Though it be true that Bowles was about eighty-three years of age when the deed was executed, his own deposition given several months later shows that he was a man of fine intelligence, and while it may be true that he had been drinking, the weight of the evidence is to the effect that he knew and appreciated exactly what he was doing. Not only was the conveyance read and explained to Mm at the time, *599but he stated to several persons after its execution that he had deeded the land to his daughter, thus showing that he knew that he had executed the deed instead of the contract as claimed by him. In view of these facts, we see no reason to disturb the finding of the chancellor that the deed was not obtained by fraud.

The evidence does not substantiate the charge that there was a failure of consideration. The grantor lived with his daughter for several months. • He admitted that she looked after his wants in every way, and took good care of him. He says that he left merely because his daughter and her husband were claiming the land. This they had the right to do as there was no fraud in the execution of the deed. One who conveys his land to another, in consideration of support, cannot claim a failure of consideration where he alone is responsible for the grantee’s failure to carry out the agreement.

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 10.1

 

SMART & FINAL STORES, INC.

 

AMENDMENT TO

NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENTS

 

Preliminary Statement

 

The terms of the Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreement (designated as Award Number 13-069), dated as of February 1, 2013, evidencing an option (the “Option”) granted to Martin J. Trtek (“Participant”) to purchase 109,250 shares of Common Stock of Smart & Final Stores, Inc. (the “Company”), at an exercise price of $5.27 per share; the Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreement (designated as Award Number 13-070), dated as of February 1, 2013, evidencing an Option granted to Martin J. Trtek to purchase 109,250 shares of Common Stock of the Company, at an exercise price of $7.90 per share; and the Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreement, dated as of September 23, 2014, evidencing an Option granted to Martin J. Trtek to purchase 83,333 shares of Common Stock of the Company at an exercise price of $12.00 (together, the “Agreements”), hereby are amended by this amendment (“Amendment”) effective April 21, 2016.

 

1.                                      The following is hereby added to Section 6 of each of the Agreements:

 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Participant’s Termination is due to Retirement (as defined below), the portion of the Option that is vested and exercisable on the date of such Termination may be exercised by the Participant at any time within the period beginning on the date of Termination and ending on the earlier of (i) two years after the date of such Termination and (ii) the Expiration Date.  For purposes of this Agreement, “Retirement” means the Participant’s Termination solely due to the Participant’s retirement on or after (x) reaching age 65 or (y) reaching age 55 and providing at least 10 years of service to the Company; but excluding any retirement after the occurrence of an event that would reasonably be determined by the Committee to be grounds for a Termination for Cause.

 

2.                                      Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, the Agreements shall continue to be and remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.

 

3.                                      Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meaning ascribed to them in the applicable Agreement.

 

	
 
    	
SMART &   FINAL STORES, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:   
    	
/s/   RICHARD N. PHEGLEY
    
	
 
    	
Name:   Richard N. Phegley
    
	
 
    	
Title:   Chief Financial Officer
From: passion4Him@rocketmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:01:02 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,

Marcos and Christine Urrutia

Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730