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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:02:13 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,

Monte D Tucker

Castle Rock, CO 80104
EXHIBIT 23.2

                          Consent or Independent Auditors

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated
February 16, 1996, relating to the consolidated statements of income, changes
in stockholders' equity, and cash flows of Home Federal Corporation and
Subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 1995, which report appears on
page 43 of the 1997 F&M Bancorp Annual Report, into the Form 10-K and into the
following previously filed Registration Statements of F&M Bancorp: Numbers 33-
39941 and 33-39942 on Form S-8, and 33-39940 on Form S-3.



                              /s/ Smith Elliott Kearns & Company, LLC
                              ---------------------------------------
                              Smith Elliott Kearns & Company, LLC

Hagerstown, Maryland
March 18, 1997
From: Kimberly Dawson

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 1:56:35 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Kimberly Dawson
Canton, Michigan
No. 544, Misc.

#### Mounts *v.*Boles, Warden.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit
      32.2





Multiband
      Corporation





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, Multiband Corporation (the
“Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2006, I, Steven M. Bell, Chief
      Financial 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.




Dated:
                  April 20, 2007
                Steven
                    Bell/s/
                    Steven Bell
                  Chief
                    Financial Officer
#### Friedrich Magdeburg, Appellant, *v.*Anna Gramcko, as Executrix of Marie Magdeburg, Deceased, Respondent, Impleaded with Another.

*Magdeburg*v. *Dry Dock Savings Institution,*147 App. Div. 652, appeal dismissed.

(Argued March 18, 1912;

decided March 26, 1912.)

Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered December 27, 1911, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to determine title to a certain savings bank deposit.

The motion was made upon the grounds that the Appellate Division unanimously decided that the findings of fact were supported by the evidence, and that no questions of law were raised that could be reviewed by the Court of Appeals.

*Charles E. Travis*for motion.

*August P. Wagener*opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion.
From: kaymgray60@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:46:01 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,

Kay Gray

Corinna, ME 04928
From: richard.L9@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:53:30 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,

Richard Lanigan

Stuart, FL 34996
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 Annual Report of ALCO, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the "Report"), I, Andrew Liu, CEO and Chairman 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 requirement 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 Company's
> financial position and results of operations.

/s/Andrew Liu



Andrew Liu, CEO and Chairman

April 13, 2007
#### Daniel Ackerman and others, Respondents, v. R. Watson Marcey, Appellant.

Order affirmed, without costs.
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

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    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 (1.32 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
LEGAL

NMDMB 03-91
GUIDANCE

BOILERPLATE AGREEMENTS AND VENDOR
OFFERS OF FREE EXTRAS

Perhaps due to the similarities between
their missions, the types of personnel
they both employ and the kinds of routine
and specialized supplies and equipment
they use, vendors often fail to recognize
that a Naval Medical Treatment Facility
(MTF), as an entity of the Federal
Government, must conduct its business
affairs differently from its civilian
counterparts. In marketing their
products, vendors often insist that
government officials sign a commercial
agreements they use with all their non-
government customers. They may also make
unsolicited offers of “free” supplies,
support equipment, maintenance and user
training. Again, these offers parallel
those the vendors routinely make to
civilian organizations. Although these
agreements might appear to be innocuous
and the offers "good deals for the Navy,"
both can present legal pitfalls.

All Navy acquisitions, including those
for medical supplies, equipment and ser-
vices, must be conducted following the
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and
the implementing pop and Navy regula-
tions. These rules apply whether the
items are purchased or leased. In many
cases, they mandate the use of special
contract provisions that are drafted to
Protect the interests of the Government
to the maximum extent. Absent special
authority, no Navy contracting office can
deviate from them. The boilerplate found
in a vendor's commercial agreement may be
inconsistent with the clauses found in
the FAR guidelines. This is often true
in the treatment of warranty coverage,
risk of loss to vendor-owned equipment
and renewals of the agreement itself.
Vendor-drafted clauses frequently exclude
legal rights and remedies normally
reserved to the Government in its con-

tracts, such as the right to terminate
the contract for default or the
Government's convenience. They also

often attempt to apply state laws to the
Federal Government.

Few offers for “free” items come with no
strings attached. They are most often
accompanied by requirements that the MTF
commit in advance to the purchase of a

minimum amount or that the MTF purchase
related products exclusively from the
vendor in question. When the "free" items
represent valid needs of the MIF, the
safest procedure to take is to purchase
or lease them with appropriated funds and
to follow strictly all procurement
statutes and regulations. The acceptance
such vendor offers may circumvent these
laws and regulations, give one vendor an
unfair competitive advantage over others,
and lead to bid protests by other vendors.
Signing certain vendor agreements may
also constitute an unauthorized commit-
ment made on behalf of the Government or
the unauthorized acceptance of a gift to
the Navy.

In short, be very cautious when a vendor
wants you to sign its standard commercial
agreement or makes your activity an offer
that appears to be too good to be true.
Doubtful cases should be referred to
counsel for a legal opinion.

NMLC point of contact is Mr. Robert Osing
who may be reached at 301-663-2157 or by
AUTOVON at 343-2157.
#### Carnegie Trust Company, by George C. Van Tuyl, Jr., as Superintendent of Banks of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*New York Real Estate Security Company, Appellant, Impleaded with Others.

*Van Tuyl*v. *N. Y. Real Estate Security Co.,*153 App. Div. 410, affirmed.

(Argued January 8, 1913;

decided January 28, 1913.)

Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered November *27,*1912, which modified and affirmed as modified an order of Special Term denying a motion for judgment on the pleadings and granting a counter-motion for leave to amend by changing the title of the action, which was brought to foreclose a mortgage.

The following questions were certified:

*692“1. Whether on the facts shown by the record herein the defendant, appellant, was entitled to judgment on the pleadings.

‘‘ 2. Whether on the facts shown by the record herein the amendment allowed at Special Term, as modified by the order of the Appellate Division, is permissible.”

*William D. Gaillard*for appellant.

*Frank M. Patterson*and *John B. Loughborough*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs. Second question answered in the affirmative. First question not answered, because the answer to the second question has rendered the first question immaterial; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Werner, Willard Bartlett, Chase, Collin and Hogan, JJ. Not sitting: Hiscock, J.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

PAUL FURNESS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 35 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 8th day of September, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from Form 10-K
the year ended  December  31,  1996 for May  Limited  Partnership  1983-2 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000735552
<NAME>                        May Limited Partnership 1983-2
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1996
<CASH>                                         157
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  161
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               318
<PP&E>                                         16,618
<DEPRECIATION>                                 16,072
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 864
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          27
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     837
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   864
<SALES>                                        922
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               931
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  119
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               12
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                608
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            608
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   608
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  31.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  31.45
        


</TABLE>
From: glitzella@mac.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:13:28 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 Glitz

Des Plaines, IL 60016