alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 172 (Thursday, September 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 61593]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19438]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: Tuesday, September 12, 2023, at 10:30 a.m. and its 
continuation at the conclusion of the open meeting on September 14, 
2023.

PLACE: 1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC and virtual (this meeting 
will be a hybrid meeting.)

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 
30109.
    Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to 
have a considerable adverse effect on the implementation of a proposed 
Commission action.
    Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or 
arbitration.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Judith Ingram, Press Officer. 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

(Authority: Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b)

Vicktoria J. Allen,
Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2023-19438 Filed 9-5-23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
From: Angela Albrecht

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: opposition of definition of religious employer

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 10:12:53 PM

To the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:

The current definition of religious employer does not provide true conscience

protection for those committed to preserving life. Healthcare 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.

Sincerely,

Angela Albrecht
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 02, 2018. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, May 02, 2018 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A18D0413. DAVID EARL BRITT v. TOM DAVIS, JUDGE et al..
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 17A035333
From: barbnbob@charter.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:46:23 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,

Barbara Overton

Simpsonville, SC 29681
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          27,800
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  258,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    19,100
<INVENTORY>                                    219,500
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               532,700
<PP&E>                                         514,500
<DEPRECIATION>                                 230,100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,235,800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,208,700
<BONDS>                                      1,480,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,692,500)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,235,800
<SALES>                                        468,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               468,000
<CGS>                                          168,500
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  168,500
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,400
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              57,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (42,900)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (46,600)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (46,600)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofAmNet Mortgage, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John M. Robbins, ChiefExecutive Officer 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 (“Section 906”),that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

 

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| May 16, 2005 |                    |
|-------------------|-------------------------|
|              | /s/ John M. Robbins     |   |
|              | John M. Robbins         |
|              | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
From: ruthann@meetingplaceonmarket.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:54:57 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,

Ruth Ann Stover

Lima, OH 45805
#### Nicholas Vanderwall, Respondent, v. Peter Olsen and others, Appellants.

Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Dykman, J.;

Cullen, J., not sitting.
**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 on Form 40-F/A of Rogers CommunicationsInc., a corporation organized under the laws of British Columbia (the“Company”) for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of theundersigned officers 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 requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
     2.) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.        Dated: November 23, 2004 /s/ Edward S. Rogers   Edward S. Rogers   President and Chief Executive Officer           Dated:  November 23, 2004 /s/ Alan D. Horn   Alan D. Horn   Vice President, Finance and ChiefFinancial Officer
|                                                                              
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|EXHIBIT 21                                                                    
|                                                                              
|LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF PRESIDENTIAL REALTYCORPORATION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2005
|                                                                              

|(1) | PDL, Inc.
      organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, which carries on business
      under its own name.                             
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                    
|(2) | Presidential
      Realty of Iowa, Incorporated, organized under the laws of the State of Iowa,
      which carries on business under its own name.
|    |                                                                                                                                                    
|(3) | Presidential
      Matmor Corp., organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, which carries
      on business under its own name.            
|    |                                                                                                                                                    
|(4) | Fourth Floor
      Management Corp., organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, which
      carries on business under its own name.        

|
|
From: Joanne Norris

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 6:06:14 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Joanne Norris

573 Marshall Avenue

St. Paul, MN 55102
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
  ACT

In connection with the annual report of TransGlobe Energy
  Corporation (the Registrant) on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December
  31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
  (the Report), I, Ross G. Clarkson, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant,
  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements 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 financial condition and results of
      operations of the Registrant.

/s/ Ross
  ClarksonName:
  Ross G. Clarkson 
  Title: Chief Executive Officer 
  February 10, 2009

A signed original of this written statement required by Rule
  13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has
  been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and
  furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
  request.

This certification accompanies the Form 40-F to which it
  relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
  not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the
  Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
  before or after the date of the Form 40-F), irrespective of any general
  incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectuses constituting
part of the Registration Statements (Nos. 33-40386, 33-46988, 33-57410,
33-50785, and 333-06161) on Form S-3, and the Registration Statements (Nos.
33-41440, 33-63223, 33-54365, 33-25105, 33-56903, 333-08577 and 333-18715)on
Form S-8 of Comcast Corporation of our report dated March 7, 1997 on the
financial statements of American PCS, L.P. (A Delaware Limited Partnership) as
of and for the year ended December 31, 1996 referred to in the consolidated
financial statements of Sprint Spectrum Holding Company, L.P. and subsidiaries,
which appears in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Comcast Corporation for the
year ended December 31, 1996.


/s/ PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP

Washington, DC
March 25, 1997
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0700

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

BRENNAN ADRIAN JONES,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until April 13, 2020, to prepare, 

file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief. 

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

March 10 2020

03/10/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0700
[Crim. No. 360.

Fourth Appellate District.

March 15, 1938.]

#### THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. SHELDON W. BROWN, Appellant.

Charles M. Astle for Appellant.

U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, and Henry A. Hunter, Deputy District Attorney (Fresno County), for Respondent.

MARKS, J.

When this cause was called for argument the attorney-general moved to affirm the judgment under the provisions of section 1253 of the Penal Code.

The clerk’s transcript was filed on December 31, 1937, and the reporter’s transcript on January 26, 1938. The cause was placed on the March 8, 1938, calendar for argument. No one appeared for defendant and no briefs have been filed for him.

Judgment affirmed.

Barnard, P. J., and Jennings, J., concurred.
Page 1 of 2

ale ners aun
AL PROCESSING DIVISION, REC 184 id iC sis eon
UEBLICATION & REGULATION
P BRANCH

As of: August 06, 2010 o10
eceived: August 05, 2
PUBLIC Po
SUBMISSION Comments Duet August 16, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0010
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Rules Relating to Status as a Grandfathered
Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Afforable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0010-0001
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage: Interim Final Rules for Relating to Status as
a Grandfathered Health Plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Document: IRS-2010-0010-0039
Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488

Submitter Information

Name: Shirlyn Adkins
Address:
2621 Superior Dr NW
Rochester, MN, 55901
Email: sadkins@aanem.org
Phone: 507-288-0100
Organization: American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM)
Government Agency Type: Federal
Government Agency: HRSA

General Comment

On behalf of the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM), I
appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Interim Final Rules regarding grandfathered health
plans under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. AANEM is a section 501(c)(6)
individual membership organization of 5000 members. We have a staff of 16.

Our insurance costs have become a huge problem for us. We had one staff member who had a
very expensive montly prescription for a rare disease. As a result, our insurance cost for all or our
employees are at the highest possible level allowed by law. Although this employee has left
AANEM, it will be years before the current insurance company wil! reduce our expenses. We are
forced to switch to another plan in the coming months in an attempt to lower our insurance costs.
We currently pay 100% of an employees costs. We also will be reviewing this.

I would suggest for the transition period before the Exchange is established, that small and
medium sized employers, such as AANEM, be allowed to make cost saving changes to
copayments and cost sharing provided I do not reduce the per-employee amount we pay for
insurance. This could help organizations like mine adjust and preserve coverage in anticipation of
greater reform and options that will occur beginning in 2014. I also suggest that small and

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=P... 8/6/2010



Page 2 of 2

medium sized employers be allowed to change insurance carriers prior to 2014 and have the
plans treated as grandfathers plans provided that provided they do not reduce the per-employee
amount they pay for insurance. This would allow organizations like mine to maintain the level of
coverage for employees, but reap the benefit of a less expensive plan prior to the implementation

of the Exchange.

Thank you for this opportunity to express our views on this important issue.

Shirlyn Adkins, JD
AANEM Executive Director

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=P... 8/6/2010
FILED

October 16, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

WESTERN SECTION AT JACKSON 

 

JESSIE W. JONES and wife,

MELISSA A. JONES,

Plaintiffs/Appellants,

vs. Tipton Law No. 4368 

Appeal No. 02A01-9704-CV-00090

TIPTON COUNTY, TENNESSEE,

Defendant/ Appellee. 

 

DISSENT 

 

HOLLY KIRBY LILLARD, J.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s affirmation of the trial court’s grant of summary

judgment to defendant Tipton County. I believe that the allegations in the Complaint, together with

the plaintiff’s affidavits, are sufficient to survive the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

In their complaint, the Joneses aver generally that a “defective unsafe or dangerous

condition” existed with respect to the road in question. The majority rightly notes that the only

specific fact cited in support of this allegation is the purported existence of a “large pothole or

sinkhole in the road. . . .” The plaintiffs have produced no evidence that the defendants had actual

or constructive knowledge of the pothole or sinkhole. Therefore, if the pothole or sinkhole were the

only alleged defect in the road, summary judgment would be appropriate.

However, Mr. Jones also filed an affidavit in response to the City’s motion to dismiss in

which he stated that he “went over a hill at a spot where the road curves to the left.” At this point

in the road, “there were no signs warning of a hill or curves at this spot.” He alleges that inadequate

signs, a “dangerous drop-off” and lack of guardrails created a dangerous condition. Obviously, the

defendants would have notice of the signage, the curve in the road and the lack of guardrails. 

In Tennessee, a pleading “which, by fair and natural construction, shows a substantial cause

of action, is sufficient, and every reasonable presumption must be made in its favor, not against it.”

Wheeler v. City of Maryville, 203 S.W.2d 924, 926, 29 Tenn. App. 318, 321-22 (1947). Here, the

complaint generally alleges a dangerous condition and cites only the pothole or sinkhole as a specific

fact supporting the allegation. However, the plaintiff’s affidavit cites additional specific facts to

further support the Complaint’s general allegation of a dangerous condition.
2

Although this Court has no duty to create a claim the pleader does not spell out in its

complaint,see Donaldson v. Donaldson, 557 S.W.2d 60, 62 (Tenn. 1977), we will give effect to the

substance rather than the form and terminology of a pleading. See Usrey v. Lewis, 553 S.W.2d 612,

614 (Tenn. App. 1977). See also Brown v. City of Manchester, 722 S.W.2d 394 (Tenn. App. 1986);

Adams v. Carter County Memorial Hospital, 548 S.W.2d 307, 308-09 (Tenn. 1977) (“All that Tenn.

R. Civ. P. requires is that a complaint contain a short, plain statement of a claim showing the pleader

is entitled to relief along with a claim of damages.).

Consequently, I would reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and remand the

case for trial. 

 

HOLLY KIRBY LILLARD, J.