alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I 

107TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 1366

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 21,2002

Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

AN ACT

For the relief of Lindita Idrizi Heath.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 1366 RFH 

1 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR LINDITA 

2 IDRIZI HEATH. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 

4 101(b)(1) and subsections (a) and (b) of section 201 of 

5 the Immigration and Nationality Act, Lindita Idrizi Heath 

6 shall be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for 

7 adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted 

8 for permanent residence upon filing an application for 

9 issuance of an immigrant visa under section 204 of that 

10 Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resi11 dent. 

12 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Lindita Idrizi 

13 Heath enters the United States before the filing deadline 

14 specified in subsection (c), Lindita Idrizi Heath shall be 

15 considered to have entered and remained lawfully and 

16 shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of 

17 status under section 245 of the Immigration and Nation18 ality Act as of the date of enactment of this Act. 

19 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

20 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap21 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica22 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

23 within 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act. 

24 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS.—

25 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res26 idence to Lindita Idrizi Heath, the Secretary of State shall 
3

S 1366 RFH 

1 instruct the proper officer to reduce by one, during the 

2 current or next following fiscal year, the total number of 

3 immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the 

4 country of birth of Lindita Idrizi Heath under section 

5 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, if appli6 cable, the total number of immigrant visas that are made 

7 available to natives of the country of birth of Lindita Idrizi 

8 Heath under section 202(e) of that Act. 

9 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY FOR CITIZENSHIP. 

10 For purposes of section 320 of the Immigration and 

11 Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1431; relating to the automatic 

12 acquisition of citizenship by certain children born outside 

13 the United States), Lindita Idrizi Heath shall be consid14 ered to have satisfied the requirements applicable to 

15 adopted children under section 101(b)(1) of that Act (8 

16 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1)). 

17 SEC. 3. LIMITATION. 

18 No natural parent, brother, or sister, if any, of 

19 Lindita Idrizi Heath shall, by virtue of such relationship,
4

S 1366 RFH 

1 be accorded any right, privilege, or status under the Immi2 gration and Nationality Act.

Passed the Senate October 17, 2002. 

Attest: JERI THOMSON, 

Secretary.
From: Mrs. Jeanne Breunig

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 3:36:05 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,
Mrs. Jeanne Breunig

Middleton, Wisconsin
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.2


ACTION BY THE PLAN ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
BENEFIT EQUALIZATION PLAN




The undersigned, being duly designated as the Administrator of the Benefit Equalization Plan (the “Plan”) pursuant to the terms of the Plan, with the authority to amend the Plan where the amendment or amendments to the Plan do not increase the annual expenditure of the Plan by more than $500,000, or if authorized by the Board of Directors of Altria Group, Inc. (the “Board”) to amend the Plan, hereby amends the Plan as follows:
WHEREAS, Altria Client Services LLC (the “Company”) maintains the Plan for the benefit of eligible employees; and


WHEREAS, the Board has approved the 2016 salaried workforce restructuring associated with the productivity initiative, including the offer of enhanced early retirement benefits to certain employees of Altria companies; and


WHEREAS, the Board has authorized the Administrator to amend the Plan to make any necessary changes related to such enhanced early retirement benefits; and


WHEREAS, the Administrator desires to make certain amendments to the Plan related to such enhanced early retirement benefits.


NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby:


RESOLVED, that the Plan, as amended and in effect to the date hereof, be further amended as set forth below, effective March 31, 2016, with such changes therein as the proper officers of the Company, with the advice of counsel, may deem necessary or advisable.


		
	1.
	ARTICLE IIA(1)(a)(ii) of the Plan is amended to read as follows: 




(ii)    In the case of a Retired Employee who is eligible to receive an enhanced benefit under the Qualified Plan (such as a benefit payable pursuant to a voluntary early retirement program or a shutdown benefit), but whose additional accrued benefit resulting solely from participation in such program or benefit will not be paid from the Qualified Plan (A) because of the nondiscrimination requirements of Section 401(a)(4) of the Code or the coverage requirements of Section 410(b) of the Code, or (B) because such Retired Employee was entitled to an Allowance under the Plan before the effective date of such program or benefit, the amount of such additional accrued benefit payable to such Retired Employee solely as a result of his participation in such program or benefit.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, an Employee who would be eligible for an Early Retirement Allowance under the Retirement Plan by the end of his or her policy severance under the Altria Severance Pay Plan, without regard to the enhanced benefit or program, will not be eligible for the benefit described in this subparagraph (ii).    














    
RESOLVED, that the proper officers of the Company be, and they hereby are, authorized to do all acts and things and to execute and deliver all documents and instruments as may be necessary or desirable to carry out the purposes of the foregoing resolutions.




Dated:    March 25, 2016


	
		
	 
	/s/ RODGER W. ROLLAND

	 
	Rodger W. Rolland

	 
	Administrator, Benefit Equalization Plan
Exhibit 32



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



The undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of Virginia Financial Group, Inc., respectively, certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004, which accompanies this certification fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Virginia Financial Group, Inc. at the dates and for the
periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), and no purchaser or seller of securities or any other person shall be entitled to rely upon the foregoing
certification for any purpose. The undersigned expressly disclaim any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.



|            |  |                                                     
|----------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|May 5, 2004 |  | /s/ O.R. Barham, Jr.                                
|            |  | President and Chief Executive Officer               
|            | 
|            |  | /s/ Jeffrey W. Farrar                               
|            |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
From: Monica Poindexter

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: AAUW

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:40:44 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.
From: ellisquigley@charter.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:09:56 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,

Ellis Quigley

Covington, LA 70435
From: Marjorie Crockett

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Support Access to Preventive Care and Contraception!

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 11:05:23 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.

Thank you,

Marjorie Crockett
From: dolores.guest@centerpointenergy.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:05:35 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,

Dolores Guest

Houston, TX 77095
From: Matthew Karl

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Definition of Religious Employer?

Date: Friday, August 12, 2011 12:28:31 PM

The current definition of religious employer does not provide true conscience

protection for those committed to preserving life. Health care plans should not be

forced to violate the moral and religious convictions of providers or employees in

order to participate in the health care system. Requiring such an unacceptable

demand threatens both universal access to health care and religious freedom of

conscience.

-- 

God bless you with Peace, Matthew

P. S. Be Pro-Life and choose choice for those who one day will choose, can or have

chosen until life has ended. 

P.P.S. Find my Wheres George.com 

Profile: http://www.wheresgeorge.com/user_profile_popup.php?

ukey=f62f9872ebbcd935677b9c1ec22d1c78
### .-PARTfv^ENTO F ^ANSPORWIO N •:/'L!0FERATI0M 3 SERVE D APRI L 20 , 201 1 U.S
. DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C
IN TH E MATTE RO F WEBC O Aircraf t

Compan y FAA DOCKE T NO
. CP09CE000 1 (Civi l Penalty Action ) DM S No
. FAA-2009-083 9
ORDE RO FDISMISSA L O n Augus t

19 , 2009 , th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (hereinafte r referre dt o a s "Complainant" ) filedaComplaint
. O n Augus t 11 , 2009 , (hereinafte r

referre dt o a s "Respondent" ) file daReques t

for Hearing
. O n Apri l 12 , 2011 , Complainan t requeste dtha t

it s Complain t

b e withdrawn
. 1 4 C.F.R
. § 13.21 5 states : "A t an y tim e befor e o r

durin g ahearing , a n agenc y attorne y may withdra w acomplain t

o r party may withdra w areques t for ahearin g withou t

th e consen t

o f th e administrativ e lawjudge
. I f a n agenc y attorne y withdraw s th e complain t o r aparty withdraw s th e reques t

for ahearin g an dth e answer , th e administrativ e lawjudg e shal l dismis s th e proceeding s unde r

this subpart

withprejudice. " WHEREFORE , th e withi n file dReques t t o Withdra w Complain t

havin g bee n rea dan d considered , i t

i s ORDERE D a s follows : 1
. Complainant' s Reques t t o Withdra w Complain t

b e an di s hereb y granted ; an d 2
. Thi s proceedin g b e £in di s hereb y dismisse dwithprejudice
.

^ U.S
. Administrativ e Law Judg e Attachment s - Servic e Lis tFA A Docke t No
. CP09CE000 1 (Civi l Penalty Action ) SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L& ON E COP Y Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W
. Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention ; Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 '

ON E COP Y Robert Weber , Presiden t Webc o Aircraf

t Company , Responden t 113 4 N.Olive r

Roa d Newton , K S 67114-944 6 Edwar dA
. McConwell , Respondent' s Counse l McConwel l Law Office s 592 5 Beverl y Mission , K S 6620 2 TEL : 913-262-060 5 FAX : 913-262-065 2 Davi dKessler , Complainant' s Counse l Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counsel , ACE-7 , Central Regio n Federal Aviatio n Administratio n DO T Building , 90 1 Locust
. Roo m50 6 Kansa s City , M O 64106-264 1 TEL : 816-329-376 3 FAX : 816-329-377 1 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC
. Goodwin , Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S
. Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E
. Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mE l 2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : Attorney-Advisor : 202-366-213 9 Lega l Assistant : 202-366-512 1 FAX ; 202-366-753 6

' Servicewasb

y U.S
. Mail
. Fo

r servic e i n perso n o r b y expedite dcourier , us e th e followin g address : Federa

l Aviatio n Administration
. 60

0 Independenc

e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Buildingr-Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington

, D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearin

g Docke t Clerk , AGC430
. * ^
From: armroz120@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:54:10 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Rosalyn Brandi

Hamden, CT 06517