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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:58:07 AM

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,

J Williams

Long Beach, CA 90808
From: jenniferhrainey@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:59:56 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,

Jennifer Rainey

Pelham, AL 35124
II

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1071

To amend title 23, United States Code, to require consideration under the

congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program of the extent

to which a proposed project or program reduces sulfur or atmospheric

carbon emissions, to make renewable fuel projects eligible under that

program, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 20, 2001

Mr. BOND introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to

the Committee on Environment and Public Works

A BILL

To amend title 23, United States Code, to require consideration under the congestion mitigation and air quality

improvement program of the extent to which a proposed

project or program reduces sulfur or atmospheric carbon

emissions, to make renewable fuel projects eligible under

that program, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Biofuels Air Quality

5 Act’’.
2

•S 1071 IS

1 SEC. 2. CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN PROJECT EFFECTS.

2 Section 149(b) of title 23, United States Code, is

3 amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘For the pur4 pose of determining eligibility under this section, the Sec5 retary shall consider the extent to which a proposed

6 project or program reduces sulfur or atmospheric carbon

7 emissions.’’.

8 SEC. 3. STATES RECEIVING MINIMUM APPORTIONMENT.

9 Section 149(c) of title 23, United States Code, is

10 amended in each of paragraphs (1) and (2) by inserting

11 before the period at the end the following: ‘‘or for any

12 project that will provide for the use of renewable fuel de13 scribed in subsection (e)(4)(A)(i)’’.

14 SEC. 4. RENEWABLE FUEL PROJECTS.

15 Section 149(e)(4) of title 23, United States Code, is

16 amended—

17 (1) by inserting ‘‘, publicly owned, or nonprofit18 owned’’ after ‘‘privately owned’’; and

19 (2) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘the costs

20 of vehicle’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘the costs

21 of—

22 ‘‘(i) renewable fuel, consisting of any

23 fuel produced from grain, oilseeds, or other

24 biomass (including biodiesel), that is used

25 to replace or reduce the quantity of fossil
3

•S 1071 IS

1 fuel present in a fuel mixture used to oper2 ate motor vehicles;

3 ‘‘(ii) installation of capital equipment

4 necessary for the conversion of storage and

5 distribution facilities to carry renewable

6 fuels or renewable fuel blends; and

7 ‘‘(iii) vehicle’’.

Æ
### to
Purchasing Equipment, Software, and Related Services
by the offices of the
U.S. House of Representatives104th Congress

Committee on House Oversight
Bill Thomas, Chairman
April, 1996Table of Contents
Committee Members
**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 Quarterly Report of Vail Banks, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gary S. Judd, Chief
Executive Officer and President (principal executive 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, that:
 
 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 Company.
 
 
 
 /s/ Gary
S. Judd
 Gary S. Judd
 Chief
Executive Officer and President
 May 13,
2005
#### Henry A Taylor, Respondent, v. Harvey L. Ellis, Appellant.

Order modified, as directed in opinion, and affirmed as modified, without costs to either party. Opinion

*Per Curiam.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                       9
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                   JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                     SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                             8,243
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>             2,839
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                  32,610
<TRADING-ASSETS>                       0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>       68,965
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>             3,444
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>               3,452
<LOANS>                          265,384
<ALLOWANCE>                        2,914
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   401,738
<DEPOSITS>                       315,955
<SHORT-TERM>                       7,493
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                3,840
<LONG-TERM>                       42,749
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                        2,134
<COMMON>                              16
<OTHER-SE>                        29,550
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>   401,738
<INTEREST-LOAN>                   19,570
<INTEREST-INVEST>                  3,760
<INTEREST-OTHER>                   1,051
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                  24,381
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                10,726
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                12,426
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>             11,955
<LOAN-LOSSES>                        561
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                   665
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                   12,354
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    3,214
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>         3,214
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                       2,186
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       1.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                       1.11
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                         0
<LOANS-NON>                          453
<LOANS-PAST>                           0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                       0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                      704
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                   2,789
<CHARGE-OFFS>                        868
<RECOVERIES>                         432
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                  2,914
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>               2,914
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                    0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                0
        


</TABLE>
From: diane@immers.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:38:32 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,

Diane Immer

El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
| — | our      Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated February 20,      2008 on the consolidated balance sheets of Rogers Communications Inc.      ("the Company") as at December 31, 2007 and 2006, the consolidated      statements of income, shareholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the      years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2007 and the consolidated      statement of comprehensive income for the year ended December 31,      2007 |
|---------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| — | our      Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated February 20,      2008 on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of      December 31, 2007 |
|---------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF
INCOME, AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS OF JOURNAL
REGISTER COMPANY FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 24, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                   1,000

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                 DEC-27-1999
<PERIOD-END>                   SEP-24-2000
<CASH>                            1,079
<SECURITIES>                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                    63,410
<ALLOWANCES>                      6,996
<INVENTORY>                       8,658
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 77,581
<PP&E>                          217,543
<DEPRECIATION>                  125,127
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  659,084
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            89,931
<BONDS>                         530,473
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<COMMON>                            484
<OTHER-SE>                      (89,480)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    659,084
<SALES>                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                350,243
<CGS>                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   197,199
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 21,058
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  3,276
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               39,492
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 199,341
<INCOME-TAX>                     67,369
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             130,830
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                    130,830
<EPS-BASIC>                        2.89
<EPS-DILUTED>                      2.88



</TABLE>
#### MILLER *v.*LAKE, SECRETARY OF STATE OF TEXAS.

No. 415.

Decided October 15, 1962.

*John J. Herrera*for appellant.

*Will Wilson,*Attorney General of Texas, and *William E. Allen*and *H. Grady Chandler,*Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 10.9
                         SALOMON BROTHERS REALTY CORP.
                              390 Greenwich Street
                            New York, New York 10013

                                                                November 9, 2000

New Century Mortgage Corporation/NC Capital Corporation
18400 Von Karman
Irvine, California 92612

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         Reference is made to the Letter Agreement, dated April 1, 2000 (the
"Letter Agreement"),among New Century Mortgage Corporation ("New Century"), NC
Capital Corporation ("NC Capital"), Salomon Brothers Realty Corp. ("SBRC") and
Salomon Smith Barney ("Salomon"), pursuant to which SBRC and Salomon have made
available to NC Capital an aggregation line with a limit of $1,000,000,000 in
amount of mortgage loans. SBRC and Salomon hereby acknowledge that the amount of
mortgage loans delivered to the aggregation line through October 2000 exceeds
the limit set forth in the Letter Agreement. Notwithstanding the provisions of
Section 4(c) of the Letter Agreement, the undersigned hereby agrees to extend
the terms of the Letter Agreement until December 31, 2000.

                                                   SALOMON BROTHERS REALTY CORP.

                                                   By: /s/ Illegible
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                   Name:
                                                   Title:


                                                   SALOMON SMITH BARNEY INC.

                                                   By:/s/ Illegible
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                   Name:
                                                   Title:

Agreed and acknowledged:

NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE CORPORATION

By:/s/ Patrick Flanagan
    --------------------
Name:
Title:   EVP/COO

NC CAPITAL CORPORATION

By:/s/ Patrick Flanagan
     --------------------
Name:
Title:  President
Exhibit 99.1

 

 

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

To the Shareholders and Trustees of NSTAR:

 

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of NSTAR and its subsidiaries as of September 30, 2004, and the related condensed consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, and retained earnings foreach of the three-month and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2004 and September 30, 2003 and the condensed consolidated statement of cash flows for the nine-month periods ended September 30, 2004 and September 30, 2003.  This interim financial informationis the responsibility of the Company’s management.

 

We conducted our review in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).  A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures and makinginquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters.  It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the objective of which is the expression of anopinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole.  Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

 

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the accompanying condensed consolidated interim financial statements for them to be in conformity with accounting principles generally acceptedin the United States of America.

 

We previously audited in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2003, and the related consolidated statement of income,comprehensive income, retained earnings, and of cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein), and in our report dated January 20, 2004 we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements.  In our opinion, the informationset forth in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2003, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.

 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPBoston, Massachusetts

October 29, 2004

 

 

The “Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” included above is not a “report” or “part of a Registration Statement” prepared or certified by an independent registered publicaccounting firm within the meanings of Sections 7 and 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, and the accountants’ Section 11 liability does not extend to such report.
From: edgarlg345@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:46:24 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,

Edgar Gonzalez

Yonkers, NY 10704