alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.2
                             PACCAR Financial Corp.

                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

                        PURSUANT TO THE SUPPORT AGREEMENT
                         BETWEEN THE COMPANY AND PACCAR
                             (Thousands of Dollars)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                            Year Ended December 31
                                   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     1996            1995           1994           1993           1992
                                   ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------

<S>                                <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>
FIXED CHARGES
  Interest expense                 $   98,536     $   89,796     $   62,851     $   45,815     $   48,914
  Facility and equipment
    rental                                730            714            678            655            650
                                   ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------

TOTAL FIXED CHARGES                $   99,266     $   90,510     $   63,529     $   46,470     $   49,564
                                   ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------
                                   ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------

EARNINGS
  Income before taxes              $   52,180     $   46,730     $   42,147     $   30,449     $   18,645
  Depreciation                          9,579         10,605         10,168         10,701         10,524
                                   ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------
                                       61,759         57,335         52,315         41,150         29,169

FIXED CHARGES                          99,266         90,510         63,529         46,470         49,564
                                   ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------

EARNINGS AS DEFINED                $  161,025     $  147,845     $  115,844     $   87,620     $   78,733
                                   ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------
                                   ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------

RATIO OF EARNINGS
  TO FIXED CHARGES                    1.62x          1.63x         1.82x           1.89x          1.59x
</TABLE>

                                           -29-
From: Alice Labay

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: support access to preventive care for ALL women

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 8:16:45 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.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 177 (Thursday, September 14, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 63148]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19826]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: September 14, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 1, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Contract 47 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2023-257, CP2023-260.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2023-19826 Filed 9-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
From: Dfirstof3ds@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:43:06 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.

Dawn Stewart

Sincerely,

Dawn Stewart

Montgomery, AL 36109
Exhibit 23.2

         CONSENT OF PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP, INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the  inclusion  in the Annual  Report of Boole & Babbage,  Inc. on
Form 10-K of our report dated April 10, 1997,  on our audit of the  consolidated
financial  statements of MAXM Systems Corporation as September 30, 1996, and for
the year then  ended,  as  included  in the Form 8-K/A of Boole & Babbage,  Inc.
(File No. 000-13258).




\PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP \

McLean, Virginia
December 28, 1998

                                       25
EXHIBIT 23.1






                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT 


We  consent  to  the   incorporation  by  reference  in  V  Band   Corporation's
Registration Statements Nos. 2-94923, 33-7540, 33-19146 and 33-62458 on Form S-8
of our report dated  December  19, 1996 and  appearing on page F-1 of the Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended October 31, 1996.





/s/Deloitte & Touche LLP
------------------------
   DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Stamford, Connecticut
January 27, 1997
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 7, 2022

No. 04-21-00206-CV

CR+ ENTERPRISES, INC.,

Appellants

v.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee for Morgan Stanley ABS 

Capital I Inc. Trust 2006-NC4, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-NC4,

Appellees

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CI19332

Honorable Peter A. Sakai, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

On January 6, 2022, appellant Barco Realty, L.P. filed an unopposed second motion for 

extension of time to file reply brief. The motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s reply brief is due no 

later than January 18, 2022.

It is so ORDERED on January 7, 2022.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ___________________________

 MICHAEL A. CRUZ, 

 CLERK OF COURT
From: Margaret McKay

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: fairness to women

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 7:54:21 AM

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.
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Elementary Secondary EducationEnvironmental EducationHigher EducationInstructional MaterialsResource MaterialsTeaching MethodsWorld Wide Web

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Rosa Hertz, Appellant, *v.*The Warden of the City Prison of the City of New York, Respondent.

*People ex rel. Hertz*v. *Warden of City Prison, N. Y.,*154 App. Div. 888, affirmed.

(Argued January 7, 1913;

decided January 21, 1913.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered *686December 13, 1912, which affirmed an order of Special Term dismissing a writ of habeas corpus and remanding the relator to custody.

*Leon Levy*for appellant.

*Charles S. Whitman, District Attorney (Robert S. Johnstone*of counsel), for respondent.

Order affirmed; no opinion.

' Concur: Cullen, Oh. J., Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscook, Chase, Collin and Hogan, JJ.
From: Patrick Cummings

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 8:48:46 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,

Patrick Cummings
Westland, Michigan
No. 143, Misc.

#### Warren *v.*Nash, Warden.

Supreme Court of Missouri. Certiorari denied.
Docket: EBSA-2010-0018 

Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of 

Preventive Services Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0018-0002 

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services 

under Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment 

Document: EBSA-2010-0018-DRAFT-0074 

Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684 

Submitter Information 

General Comment 

These proposed limits on religious freedoms are un American, and clearly violate the intentions of 

the Framers of these United States. 

Furthermore, the end result of these measures is that all members of an insurance group will pay 

for a few women to have their sexual activity subsidized.

PUBLIC SUBMISSION 

As of: September 06, 2011 

Received: September 03, 2011 

Status: Pending_Post 

Tracking No. 80f11042 

Comments Due: September 30, 2011

Submission Type: Web

Page 1 of 1

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectId=0900... 9/6/2011
#### HOUSEHOLD FINANCE CORP. *v.*DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF TAXATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY OF NEW JERSEY.

No. 237.

Decided October 8, 1962.

*Roger C. Ward*for appellant.

*Arthur J. Sills,*Attorney General of New Jersey, and *Alan B. Handler,*Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.

Mr. Justice Goldberg took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
From: jeff@nntc.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:32:53 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,

Jeff Herfel

Jackson, NE 68743
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title
18, United States Code)



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Excelsior Private Equity Fund II, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers
knowledge, that:



The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April
30, 2005 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                    |  |  |  |                          |  |        |  |                        
|------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------ |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|                    |  | 
|Date: June 14, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ Douglas A. Lindgren 
|                    |  |  |  |                          |  | Name:  |  | Douglas A. Lindgren    
|                    |  |  |  |                          |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                    |  | 
|Date: June 14, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ Robert F. Aufenanger
|                    |  |  |  |                          |  | Name:  |  | Robert F. Aufenanger   
|                    |  |  |  |                          |  | Title: |  | Treasurer              



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
From: cjheis@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:20:15 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,

Craig Heisserer

Scott City, MO 63780