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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:43:20 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,

Dennis and Donna Larson

Wylie, TX 75098
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,271,290
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,087,695
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  6,435,162
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,887,998
<PP&E>                                         968,232
<DEPRECIATION>                                 131,296
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,738,307
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,603,347
<BONDS>                                      2,764,140
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        24,726
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,197,138
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,738,307
<SALES>                                     17,939,745
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,939,745
<CGS>                                       12,177,273
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,177,273
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,099,077
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             200,748
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                513,433
<INCOME-TAX>                                   208,921
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            305,142
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   305,142
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.19
        

</TABLE>
From: Swopey7@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: HHS Contraceptvie Mandate!

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:54:30 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Spencer Swope

, 35077-6843
EXHIBIT 21

                 LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF WARRANTECH CORPORATION

1.  WARRANTECH CORPORATION, INC. a Delaware corporation

2.  WARRANTECH CONSUMER PRODUCT SERVICES, INC. a Connecticut corporation

3.  WCPS OF FLORIDA, INC. a Florida corporation

4.  WARRANTECH AUTOMOTIVE, INC. a Connecticut corporation

5.  WARRANTECH AUTOMOTIVE OF CALIFORNIA, INC. a California corporation

6.  WARRANTECH AUTOMOTIVE RISK PURCHASING GROUP, INC. a Michigan corporation

7.  WARRANTECH AUTOMOTIVE OF FLORIDA, INC. a Florida corporation

8.  WARRANTECH DIRECT, INC. a Texas corporation

9.  WARRANTECH (UK) LIMITED a company incorporated in England

10. WARRANTECH INTERNATIONAL, INC. a Delaware corporation

11. WCPS OF CANADA, INC. a Connecticut corporation

12. WARRANTECH AUTOMOTIVE OF CANADA, INC. a Connecticut corporation

13. WARRANTECH EUROPE PLC a company incorporated in England

14. WARRANTECH ADDITIVE, INC. a Texas corporation

15. WARRANTECH HOME SERVICE COMPANY a Connecticut corporation

16. WARRANTECH CARIBBEAN LTD a company incorporated in the Cayman Islands

17. WARRANTECH HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY a Florida corporation

18. REPAIRMASTER CANADA, INC. a company incorporated in Canada

19. WCPS DIRECT, INC. a Texas corporation

20. WHSC DIRECT, INC. a Texas corporation

21. WARRANTECH HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY a Connecticut corporation

22. WARRANTECH INTERNATIONAL de CHILE a Company incorporated in Chile

23. VEMECO, INC. a Connecticut corporation

24. SUNBELT DEALER SERVICES, INC. a Delaware corporation.

25. Warrantech Management Company a Delaware corporation.

26. Warrantech Management Holding Company a Delaware corporation.

27. W Direct Corp., a Delaware corporation.

                                       8
July 26, 2013

Ms. Brooke Chapman.

Associate Director

Small Community Air Service Deve lopment Program

U.S. Department of Transportation

8'hFloor, Room W86-307

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,

Washington D.C. 20590

Subject: Alaska Airlines' Letter of Support

Small Community Air Service Development Program Grant Application

Docket DOT-OST-20 13-0120

Yakima Air Terminal- McAllister Field

Dear Ms Chapman:

.' ,

f ~~' '. ,_ .

~3L:~~_:~ I"', 1'-;~,,:ri"1 ~~j;

~,--:;::;.~~.,

CI:)

Alaska Airlines is pleased to lend their support for the above referenced application, and assure the DOT

that our group will continue to partner with Yakima and actively participate in the Strategic Plan

described in their submittal.

Alaska Air Group, including Horizon, has served Yakima from Seattle for more than 25 years and has

worked with their key community representatives on numerous occasions to strengthen the Seattle service

for both the catchment area as well as our airline. This service is important to Alaska as Yakima is a key

spoke to the Seattle. hub. It is important to the Yakima area as it provides a bridge to the National

Transportation System without contributing to the congested traffic on Route 90 over Snoqualmie pass

that takes 2 \/, hours on a good day.

Beginning in 2008 we began a refleeting program to replace the 37 seat DHC-8 Q200 aircraft with more

economical 76 seat Q400 models. The impact on Yakima was a reduction in average daily departures

from 6 to 3, maintaining about the same capacity in the market but half the frequencies. Because of the

lack of frequent departure options, the market load factors have not been good.

Therefore it is very important for both Alaska and Yakima to implement a strategic plan that will increase

loads on existing flights, add further options to the schedule, and assure long term health of our service to

the Yakima markets. The SCASDP Grant is a key part of that strategy.

We encourage the DOT to respond favorably on Yakima's Application and look forward to working with

all parties to move our mutual plan forward. Please let me know if Alaska can provide anything further

regarding this matter.

int as er

Manager, Media & Market Strategy

Alaska Airlines, Inc

f> 0 X (1 ~ 9 C. () S E t\ TTL E. \V.A. 98 J 68,,0900'? 0 6 - 4 3 ,1.~ L10
Exhibit










FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“Amendment”), between Taylor Morrison, Inc. (together with any successor thereto, the “Company”) and Carl David Cone (“Executive”), is entered into on February 26, 2016.


RECITALS:


WHEREAS, the parties entered into an Employment Agreement, dated as of January 1, 2013 (the “Employment Agreement”);


WHEREAS, Executive and the Company have agreed to amend and modify certain terms of the Employment Agreement, with the understanding that all other provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain unchanged.


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, and other good and valuable consideration, the adequacy and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Company and Executive agree as follows:


1.     The reference to “Chief Financial Officer” in Section 4 of the Employment Agreement is hereby replaced with “Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer.”


2.     The last sentence of the second paragraph of Section 12.4 of the Employment Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:


“For purposes of this Agreement, ‘Change in Control’ shall have the meaning ascribed to such term as set forth in the Taylor Morrison Home Corporation 2013 Omnibus Equity Award Plan, as amended from time to time, or any successor plan thereto.”


3.     Affirmation.     Except as specifically modified herein, all remaining provisions, terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.


4.     Miscellaneous.     This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.




*    *    *























































IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Amendment, or caused this Amendment to be duly executed on their respective behalf by their respective duly authorized officers, all effective as of the date and year first written above.


TAYLOR MORRISON, INC.                        EXECUTIVE


By: /s/ Sheryl Palmer                            /s/ C. David Cone
Sheryl Palmer                                Carl David Cone
President and Chief Executive Officer
From: billnkay@me.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:49:30 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Kay Breslin

Redmond, WA 98052
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN RE: C.M., A MINOR

PETITION OF: K.M., NATURAL MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 483 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 14th day of February, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
#### William H. Summerville, Appellant, v. William Nipper, as Trustee, etc., Respondent.

Judgment of the County Court of Oswego County reversing a justice’s judgment reversed, and judgment of the Justice’s Court affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Hardin, P. J. ; mem. by Boardman, J.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE MATTER OF THE 

PETITION OF GREG EL a/k/a 

GREGORY L. TUCKER FOR A 

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

§

§ No. 209, 2017

§

§

Submitted: July 6, 2017

 Decided: July 12, 2017

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices.

O R D E R

This 12th day of July 2017, it appears to the Court that:

(1) On May 19, 2017, Gregory El a/k/a Gregory L. Tucker (“Tucker”) filed 

a document with this Court entitled Writ of Mandamus, which the Clerk of the Court 

docketed as a request for extraordinary relief under Supreme Court Rule 43. 

Tucker’s writ asks this Court to void a judgment of the Superior Court, docketed 

April 19, 2017 in Civil Action No. N16L-03-181, granting summary judgment to the 

plaintiff LSF9 Master Participation Trust (“the Trust”), and against Tucker and his 

wife, in a mortgage foreclosure action. Arguably, Tucker’s writ could be construed 

as an attempt to timely appeal the Superior Court’s judgment in the mortgage 

foreclosure action.

(2) The Trust filed a response to Tucker’s writ on July 6, 2017. The Trust 

does not address the jurisdictional requirements of a petition for extraordinary relief. 
2

Instead, the Trust construes Tucker’s writ as an opening brief on appeal and argues 

that the judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed on its merits. 

(3) Under Article IV, § 11 of the Delaware Constitution, this Court has 

limited jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs.1 The Court has the authority to issue 

a writ of mandamus only when the petitioner can demonstrate a clear right to the 

performance of a duty, no other adequate remedy is available, and the trial court 

arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty.2 An extraordinary writ will not be 

issued if the petitioner has another adequate and complete remedy at law to correct 

the act of the trial court that is alleged to be erroneous.3 In this case, Tucker clearly 

has an adequate remedy in the appellate process. Accordingly, his petition for a writ 

of mandamus must be dismissed. 

(4) To the extent we construe this matter as Tucker’s appeal from the 

Superior Court’s April 19, 2017 judgment in C.A. No. N16L-03-181, we have 

considered the parties’ respective positions carefully and have determined that the 

judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of, and for the reasons set forth in, 

the Superior Court’s well-reasoned decision dated April 19, 2017. 

 

1 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(6) (providing that the Supreme Court may issue “writs of prohibition, 

quo warranto, certiorari and mandamus”).

2

In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988).

3 Canaday v. Superior Court, 116 A.2d 678, 682 (Del. 1955). 
3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ of 

mandamus is DISMISSED. Alternatively, the judgment of the Superior Court in 

C.A. No. N16L-03-181 is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice
|                       |   | 2010 |   |   | 2009   |   |   | CHANGE |
|----------------------------|--------|------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| Revenues                   |   | $    | 648    |   |   | $      | 700    |   |   |   | ( 7 | %) |
| Profit Before Income Taxes |   | $    | 95     |   |   | $      | 122    |   |   |   | (22 | %) |
| Profit After Tax           |   | $    | 82     |   |   | $      | 89     |   |   |   | ( 8 | %) |
| New Retail Financing       |   | $    | 2,450  |   |   | $      | 1,837  |   |   |   | 33 | %  |
| Total Assets               |   | $    | 28,776 |   |   | $      | 31,668 |   |   |   | ( 9 | %) |

|                       |   | 2010 |   |   | 2009   |   |   | CHANGE |
|----------------------------|--------|------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| Revenues                   |   | $    | 1,279  |   |   | $      | 1,381  |   |   |   | ( 7 | %) |
| Profit Before Income Taxes |   | $    | 166    |   |   | $      | 193    |   |   |   | (14 | %) |
| Profit After Tax           |   | $    | 135    |   |   | $      | 140    |   |   |   | ( 4 | %) |
| New Retail Financing       |   | $    | 4,270  |   |   | $      | 3,416  |   |   |   | 25 | %  |
Exhibit 21

 

Subsidiaries ofRegistrant

 
| **Subsidiary**                        | ** ** | **Jurisdiction of Organization** |
|---------------------------------------|------------|----------------------------------|
|                                  |       |                             |
| Immucor Medizinische  Diagnostik GmbH |       | Germany                          |
|                                  |       |                             |
| Immucor Italia S.r.l.                 |       | Italy                            |
|                                  |       |                             |
| Immucor Diagnosticos  Medicos Lda.    |       | Portugal                         |
|                                  |       |                             |
| Gamma  Biologicals, Inc.         |       | United States (Texas)            |
|                                  |       |                             |
| Dominion Biologicals  Limited         |       | Canada                           |
|                                  |       |                             |
| Immucor, S.L.                         |       | Spain                            |
|                                  |       |                             |
| Immucor Gamma Benelux  SPRL.          |       | Belgium                          |
|                                  |       |                             |
| Immucor France EURL                   |       | France                           |
|                                  |       |                             |
| BCA Acquisition  Corporation          |       | United States (Georgia)          |
|                                  |       |                             |
| Immucor  Sales, Inc.             |       | United States (Georgia)          |

 

The Company owns,directly or indirectly, 100% of each of the above entities.

 

----
IV 

House Calendar No. 250 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1350 

[Report No. 110–761] 

Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Mr. WELCH of Vermont, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 

resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules. 

1 Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time on 

2 the legislative day of Thursday, July 17, 2008, for the 

3 Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the 

4 rules relating to a measure concerning the domestic pro5 duction of oil and natural gas. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 250 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1350 

[Report No. 110

–761] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of motions to suspend 

the rules. 

JULY 16, 2008 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
From: Sophia Tiers

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Support Preventive Health Services for Women

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:19:36 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.