alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: chager14331@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:58:55 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,

Cynthia Hager

Brighton, CO 80601
EXHIBIT 11 STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF BASIC AND DILUTED EARNINGS PER
SHARE Year Ended
 December 31,2003
 
 2002
 
 2001Shares of common stock,
 beginning
 
 
 1,501,054
 
 
 1,498,558
 
 
 1,495,483Shares of common stock,
 ending
 
 
 1,516,678
 
 
 1,501,054
 
 
 1,498,558Computation of weighted
 average number of basic and diluted shares:Common shares outstanding at the beginning of the year
 
 
 1,501,054
 
 
 1,498,558
 
 
 1,495,558Weighted average number of net shares issued (redemption)
 
 
 10,263
 
 
 711
 
 
 1,506Weighted average shares outstanding
 (basic)
 
 
 1,511,317
 
 
 1,499,269
 
 
 1,497,064Weighted average of potential dilutive shares
 attributable to stock options granted, computed under the treasury stock
 method
 
 
 3,709
 
 
 12,106
 
 
 12,432Weighted average number of shares
 (diluted)
 
 
 1,515,026
 
 
 1,511,375
 
 
 1,509,496Net income (In Thousands)
 
 $
 14,269
 
 $
 11,464
 
 $
 10,144Earnings per share:Basic
 
 $
 9.44
 
 $
 7.65
 
 $
 6.78Diluted
 
 $
 9.42
 
 $
 7.58
 
 $
 6.72Dividends per common share
 
 $
 1.90
 
 $
 1.75
 
 $
 1.60 Page 83 of 92
' --ARTMENTOF 

-•N3P0RWI0N 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION J -n ^^ A^ p. ^ 3 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS ^i -

WASHINGTON, DC 

TRAVEL GROUP, INC., D/B/A REPUBLIC AIR TRAVEL 

AND SCOT SPENCER 

AIRLIFT GROUP, INC. 

AND RICHARD BERNARD 

Unauthorized Air Transportation, Unfair and Deceptive 

Practices and Unfair Methods of Competition, and 

Violations of Public Charter Rules 

EXPRESS ONE INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

Unfair and Deceptive Practices and Unfair Methods of 

Competition, and Violations of Public Charter Rules 

Enforcement Proceeding 

DOT-OST-1995-272 

formerly 

Docket 49233 

STATUS REPORT 

The Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and 

Proceedings ("Enforcement Office"), pursuant to Your Honor's March 22, 2006, Order 

staying this proceeding, files this report detailing the current status of this proceeding and 

settlement negotiations. 

The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents 

and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-

17486. 
There have been no further settlement discussions. 

Date: February 24, 2012. 

Respectfully submitted. 

Samuel Podberesky 

Assistant General Counsel for 

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

Dayton Lehman, Jr. 

Deputy Assistant General Counsel for 

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

(// . 

William J. Wagner 

Senior Trial Afinrtey 

United States Department of Transportation 

Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Room 96-429 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

TEL: 202-366-9342 

FAX: 202-366-7152 
Docket No. DOT-OST-1995-272 

I hereby certify that on this 24th day of February, 2012, a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing Status Report was served in the following manner to the following: 

Original 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

West Building Ground Floor 

RoomW12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

By First Class Mail 

The Honorable Ronnie A Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

TEL: (202) 366-2142 

FAX: (202) 366-7536 

By First Class Mail 

Scot Spencer 

SBD Aircraft Services 

255 S Leland Norton Way 

Sam Bernardino, CA 92408
From: Tom Pittman

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Cc: IttyBittyComputers

Subject: Comment to "RIN 1210-AB44"

Date: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 9:59:34 AM

Comment to "RIN 1210-AB44"

Why is this regulation in patent violation of the First Amendment to the

Constitution of the USA, in which "Congress [and by extension, Federal

agencies authorized by Congress] shall make no law respecting an

establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

whereas in this "interim final regulations" [Page 46623],

"certain religio[n]s" (literally "certain religious employers and their

employees in certain religious positions") are respected (the actual

word is "respecting") as established (the actual word used is

"establish"), by defining them to consist solely and exclusively:

"for purposes of this policy, a religious employer is one that:

 (1) Has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose;

 (2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets;

 (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and

 (4) is a non-profit organization under section 6033(a)(1) and section

6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Code. Section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) and

(iii) refer to churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions

or associations of churches, as well as to the exclusively religious

activities of any religious order."

The clear intent of this "definition of religious employer" is to

respect the establishment of "certain religio[n]s" while denying the

free exercise of others, who might reasonably be carrying out the

religious activities of their religion, such as for example defined in

the Bible [James 1:27] "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and

faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress

and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. My brothers, as

believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism."

Thus a "religious employer" by God's definition fails to meet one or

more of those four defining and establishing restrictions in this

"interim final regulations" and is thereby denied the free exercise of

their religion.

While this "interim final regulations" pretends to be instructed by

and "consistent with the policies of States that require contraceptive

services coverage," it is also clear that it intends to trample upon

and override the Rights of those States which have laid no such burden

on their religious citizens nor established some of them for protection

while denying (as does this "interim final regulations") the free

exercise of others.

This is both morally Wrong and UnConstitutional.
No. 506.

#### United States *v.*Braverman.

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg*and *Jerome M. Feit*for the United States.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Probable jurisdiction noted.
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (1.65 MB)
 
 TF 51/5 Jordan MARFORRES MARCENT CENTCOM INTREPID MAVEN 22.1
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
**Docket Number FAA -**  **2013 -**  **1026**
EX-10.1



 EXHIBIT 10.1 

AMENDMENT 1 TO JOHN E. DEAN LETTER AGREEMENT 

This Amendment No. 1 to the John E. Dean Letter Agreement (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of March 12, 2016
(the “Effective Date”) by and between ITT Educational Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“ITT/ESI”), and John E. Dean, an individual currently serving as ITT/ESI’s Executive Chairman of the Board of Directors
(“Dean”); ITT/ESI and Dean each referred to individually as a “Party” or collectively as the “Parties”). 

WITNESSETH: 
 WHEREAS, the
Parties previously entered into that certain Letter Agreement dated August 4, 2014 (the “Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, the
Parties desire to amend the Agreement in accordance with this Amendment; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the premises
and mutual covenants contained herein and for other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows: 

1. Defined Terms. Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized terms used herein shall have the meanings given thereto in the
Agreement. 
 2. Effectiveness of this Amendment. This Amendment shall become effective and the Agreement shall be amended as
provided herein on the date this Amendment is last signed by the parties. 
 3. Amendments. As of the Effective Date, the Agreement
shall be amended as follows: 
 Paragraph 1 of the Agreement shall be deleted and replaced in its entirety as follows: 

“Base Salary. While you remain employed as Executive Chairman, you will be entitled to an annual base salary of $200,000, which
will be paid to you in accordance with the Company’s regular payroll practices.” 
 4. Miscellaneous. 

(a) Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, the Agreement shall continue to be and remain in full force and effect in accordance with
its terms. Any future reference to the Agreement shall, from and after the Effective Date, be deemed to be a reference to the Agreement as amended by this Amendment. 

  
 - 1 - 








 (b) This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall constitute
an original, but all of which when taken together shall constitute but one instrument. 
 (c) This Amendment and the rights and obligations
of the parties hereunder shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Delaware without reference to conflicts of law rules. 

(d) This Amendment may be executed by facsimile or emailed pdf. signature and each such signature shall be treated in all respects as having
the same effect as an original signature. 

*        *        * 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the date first above written. 

 

			
	ITT Educational Services, Inc.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Ryan Roney

	Name:	 	Ryan Roney
	Title:	 	Chief Administrative and Legal Officer
	Date:	 	3-12-16
	
	John E. Dean
		
	By:	 	 /s/ John E. Dean

	Name:	 	John E. Dean
	Date:	 	3/12/2016



  
 - 2 -
From: Barbara B. Barnard

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: HHS re IOM preventative health care

Date: Friday, August 19, 2011 11:03:49 AM

We, who live in America, have our own "Taliban" with regards to women's

rights, especially birth control. Keep religion out of the work place as well as the

government!

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.

A concerned citizen & AAUW member
11:EEIEEMENTEIIEEMECUIR ESEMIEEEMEIMMEI

cc: Hon. Rob Bare, District Judge John C. Peterson Las Vegas City Attorney Attorney General/Carson City Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA

101 1947A 2
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-1248]
 AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
 ACTION: Notice of application.
 SUMMARY: PCI Synthesis has applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to 
                        **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION**
                         listed below for further drug information.
 DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before November 14, 2023. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before November 14, 2023.
 ADDRESSES: The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to 
                        *https://www.regulations.gov*
                         and follow the online instructions at that site for submitting comments. Upon submission of your comment, you will receive a Comment Tracking Number. Please be aware that submitted comments are not instantaneously available for public view on 
                        *https://www.regulations.gov.*
                         If you have received a Comment Tracking Number, your comment has been successfully submitted and there is no need to resubmit the same comment.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on March 30, 2023, PCI Synthesis, 9 Opportunity Way, Newburyport, Massachusetts 01950-0195, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s): Controlled substance
Drug
                             code
ScheduleAmphetamine
1100
II( print page 63623)Methamphetamine
1105
II
 The company plans to develop manufacturing processes, conduct analytical method validation and conduct bulk product stability studies. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration. Claude Redd, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2023-19989 Filed 9-14-23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Peter Smith, Appellant.

J udgmenl; affirmed. Opinion by

Brady, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1997
<CASH>                                          12,425
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   45,615
<ALLOWANCES>                                    11,341
<INVENTORY>                                     37,294
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          39,512
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,292
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 178,303
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         65,569
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           210
<OTHER-SE>                                      73,027
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   178,303
<SALES>                                         48,879
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                67,496
<CGS>                                            7,493
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   44,555
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                27,597
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,458
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,656)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (12,662)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,006
<DISCONTINUED>                                  11,334<F1>
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,340
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.99
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.99
<FN>
<F1>Net of income taxes of $9,062 and minority interest of $2,358 - Related to
Spin-off of Mego Mortgage Corporation subsidiary.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
No. 165, Misc.

#### Beltowski *v.*Everson et al.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
H. Res. 1317 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

July 10, 2008. 

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 

the bill (H.R. 1286) to amend the National Trails System 

Act to designate the Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary 

Route National Historic Trail. The first reading of the bill 

shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 

9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the 

bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 

Committee on Natural Resources. After general debate the 

bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 

rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for 

the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the 

amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 

Committee on Natural Resources now printed in the bill 
2 

•HRES 1317 EH 

modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report 

of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. 

That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order against that amendment 

in the nature of a substitute are waived except those arising 

under clause 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of 

rule XVIII, no amendment to that amendment in the nature 

of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part 

B of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each such 

amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 

report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 

report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the 

time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by 

the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to 

amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 

of the question in the House or in the Committee of the 

Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 

waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. 

At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, 

the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 

such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member 

may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment 

adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the 

amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as 

original text. The previous question shall be considered as or-
3 

•HRES 1317 EH 

dered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 

without intervening motion except one motion to recommit 

with or without instructions. 

SEC. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R.1286 

pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 

the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated by the 

Speaker. 

Attest: 

Clerk.