alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SERVED: APRIL 14, 2011 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

POLAR AIR CARGO, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP07EA0006 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2007-27914 

•^m^/m OF 

^' ."^^ 5 U P 3: Ob 

ORDER OF CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

DISMISSING PROCEEDING WITH PREJUDICE 

By letter, dated April 13, 2011,' Respondent states that "the parties have reached an 

amicable resolution of all issues in dispute" in this matter and that Respondent "withdraws its 

appeal." Accordingly, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.215, this proceeding is dismissed with 

prejudice. 

The FAA shall send the Judge and the Docket a copy of any compromise order or final order 

assessing civil penalty. 

SO ORDERED. / 

jnnie A. Yode: 

Chief Administrative 

Attachment: Service List 

' The letter, received via facsimile on April 13, 2011, is not accompanied by a certificate of service, but is 

signed by Respondent's Counsel; includes the notation "VIA FACSIMILE AND HRST CLASS U.S. MAIL," 

followed by the Judge's name, address, and fax number; and indicates "cc:" followed by the addresses and apparent 

fax numbers of the Hearing Docket and Complainant's Counsel. The rules require filing and service by personal 

delivery or mail. 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.210(a), 13.211(a). Parties must ensure that all submissions are properly filed with 

the Hearing Docket and serve a copy, with certificate of service, on all parties tod the Judge. 

^ Because Respondent initiated this proceeding by Request for Hearing dated April 13, 2007, we deem 

Respondent to have withdrawn its Request for Hearing and thus met one of § 13.215's predicates for dismissal with 

prejudice. f 
I

W  

FAA Docket No. CP07EA0G06 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

4. smmMusT 

ORIGINAlfii^iiE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration ,, j , j ; 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 . i , 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC^T^BOfg,, ^ , 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2WliOdo^ 

Paul A. Lange, Respondent's Counsel 

Law Offices of Paul A. Lange, LLC 

80 Ferry Boulevard 

Stratford, CT 06615-6079 

TEL: 203-375-7724 

FAX: 203-375-9397 

1 s' , -c*' 

-jUi?--. Aiiii 'p.. 

Christian L. Lewerenz, Complainant's Coun^§l, 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Eastern Region 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3273 '"^ ' 

FAX: 718-995-5699 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder, 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room E12-320 r' 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. * 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2142 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Aveou 

DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC 

.'.- ,>if-. i 

•'J ' 

latfX'-' 

'uinT. 

-I'-l " 

,«?«'-

i^4-'i 

9U 

'f i' 

mlaisft, use the Allowing j^(b«iss: Federal 

^ ^ Building - Suite-^WldOO, Washington, 

-2-
Exhibit
32




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of First Robinson Financial
Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2009 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date of this
Certification (the “Report”), we, Rick L. Catt, Chief Executive Officer and
Jamie E. McReynolds, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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 result of operations of the
Company.




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or another document
authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of the written statement required by
Section 906, has been provided to First Robinson Financial Corporation and will
be retained by First Robinson Financial Corporation and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





By:
              /s/RickL.Catt
              
              By:
              /s/ Jamie E. McReynoldsName:  Rick L. Catt
              Name:  Jamie E. McReynoldsChief Executive Officer
              Chief Financial OfficerAugust  13, 2009
              August 13, 2009
August 9, 2010 

Office ofConsumer Infonnation and Insurance Oversight 


Department ofHealth and Human Services 


Attention: OCII0-9991-IFC 


P.O. Box 8016 


Baltimore,MD 21244-1850 


Re: Interim Final Rule for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating to 

status as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

Below are my comments regarding the Interim Final Rule for Group Health Plans and Health 

. __ }~anc~ Coverage ~el::~ting_ to Statusas.~ Grandf~there~ Health Plan Under the Patient ~ . 

Protection and Affordable Care Act (PP ACA). 

I believe that every effort should be made to increase the number ofindividuals covered by 

PPACA, especially as ofJanuary 1,2014 when most ofthe refonn components (Insurance 

Exchanges, Subsidies, Tax Credits, etc.) come into play. 

The average consumer has a broad definition of "benefits." Consumers view their health plan 

beyond the covered benefits, cost sharing, and the contribution levels associated with the plan. 

Itis my opinion that the Rule may still result in some confusion to the marketplace in its 

application. For example, if an employer raised the copayment level beyond the maximum in one 

area (Le. outpatient services) but retained the copayment level for primary care doctor visits, 

does that mean a loss ofgrandfather status? Clarity will be critical both for the employer and the 

employee.' . ~ 

Even by the most optimistic estimates, a substantial portion ofthe employee population will ". 

remain outside the PPACA as ofJanuary 2014 based on the current rules. While I understand the 

difficulty involved in making change, creating another large sub-population of excluded 

individuals will only add to costs" increase confusion, and mitigate the potential impact ofthe 

legislation. 

The Rule needs to be c1ear,reasonable, and with no ambiguities ulvolved in determining whether 

a group health,plan is "in or out." The decisions the federal government makes today will 

detennine the outcomes for tomorrow. We may need to make SOme difficult decisions to create 

a sustainable health care system that will support a growing economy in the future. That means 

getting as many citizens across the country participating at the beginning to make it work and 

delivering on its promises to retain their sUpJ'ort. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this regulation. ~ , • '; I.'; .' 

, ~ t ( I ~ ~. : ' Venessa Bartholomew . ~J • • 

1 ;. , " 

.\
From: Shannon

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: "Religious Refusal" to preventative care and contraception is gender based discrimination!!

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:04:07 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. "Religious Refusal" to preventative care

and contraception is gender based discrimination!
**EXHIBIT 8**

**LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES**

|                                          |                       |                             |           |
|------------------------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------------|-----------|
|                                     |                  |                        | % of      |
| Name                                     | Jurisdiction          | Business                    | Ownership |
|                                          |                       |                             |           |
| TransGlobe Oil and Gas Corporation       | Washington State      | Oil and gas exploration and | 100%      |
|                                     |                  | development                 |      |
| TransGlobe Petroleum International Inc.  | Turks and Caicos, BWI | Holding company             | 100%      |
| TransGlobe International (Holdings) Inc. | Turks and Caicos, BWI | Holding company             | 100%      |
|                                     |                  | Dissolved December 5, 2002  |      |
| TG Holdings Yemen Inc.                   | Turks and Caicos, BWI | Oil and gas exploration and | 100%      |
|                                     |                  | development                 |      |
|                                          |                       |                             |           |

 

 

 

 

Page 1 of 1

----
December 10, 1962.

No. 91.

No. 93.

No. 107.

#### McLeod, Regional Director, National Labor Relations Board, *v.*Empresa Hondurena de Vapores, S. A. National Maritime Union of America, AFL-CIO, *v.*Empresa Hondurena de Vapores, S. A. McCulloch, Chairman, National Labor Relations Board, et al. *v.*Sociedad Nacional de Marineros de Honduras.

*Robert MacCrate*on the motion.

Certiorari, 370 U. S. 915, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit;

Certiorari, 370 U. S. 915, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; and

Certiorari, 370 U. S. 915, to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The motion of Canada for leave to file brief, as *amicus curiae,*is granted.

Mr. Justice Goldberg took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
#### The John S. Way Manufacturing Company, Respondent, v. Samuel Corn and others, Appellants.

Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, costs to abide event, unless plaintiffs consent to the modification suggested iu opinion, in which case judgment affirmed as modified, without costs to either party. Opinion by

Brady, J.
From: billdian@tds.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:25:49 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,

Bill Taylor

Middleton, WI 53562
EXHIBIT 24

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

Each of the undersigned directors and officers of Cross Medical Products, Inc.
(the "Corporation") whose signature appears below hereby appoints Edward R. Funk
or Joseph A. Mussey, or either of them, as his attorney-in-fact to sign, in his
name and behalf and in any and all capacities stated below, and to cause to be
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Corporation's Annual
Report on Form 10-K (the "Annual Report") for the fiscal year ended December
31, 1997, and likewise to sign and file any amendments, including
post-effective amendments, to the Annual Report, hereby granting unto such
attorneys and each of them full power and authority to do and perform in the
name and on behalf off the undersigned, and in any and all such capacities,
every act and thing whatsoever necessary to be done in and about the premises
as fully as the undersigned could or might do in person, hereby granting to
such attorney-in-fact full power of substitution and revocation, and hereby
ratifying all that such attorney-in-fact or his substitute may do by virtue
hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Power of Attorney in
counterparts if necessary, effective as of March 1, 1998.

DIRECTORS/OFFICERS:

SIGNATURE                       TITLE
---------                       -----

/s/ Joseph A. Mussey            President, Chief Executive Officer, and
--------------------            Treasurer
Joseph A. Mussey                (Principal Executive Officer)

/s/ Paul A. Miller              Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
------------------              (Principal Accounting Officer)
Paul A. Miller

/s/ Edward R. Funk              Chairman of the Board of Directors
------------------
Edward R. Funk, Ph.D.

/s/ Daniel A. Funk              Director
------------------
Daniel A. Funk, M.D.

/s/ Daniel A. Gregorie          Director
----------------------
Daniel A. Gregorie, M.D.

/s/ Herbert J. Kahn             Director
-------------------
Herbert J. Kahn

/s/ Curtis A. Loveland          Director
----------------------
Curtis A. Loveland

/s/ C. Craig Waldbillig         Director
-----------------------
C. Craig Waldbillig

/s/ Peter H. Williams           Director
---------------------
Peter H. Williams

/s/ Robert J. Williams          Director
----------------------
Robert J. Williams
From: daooms1@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:33:00 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,

Andrew Ooms

San Jacinto, CA 92583
#### Matter of Application of Staten Island Railroad Company, to acquire lands of Bodine and another.

— Order affirmed, with costs' and disbursements. Opinion by

Dykman, J.;

Barnard, P. J., not sitting.
<PAGE>
                                                                     Exhibit 3.2





                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                    OF THE CHARTER AS AMENDED AND RESTATED OF

                         THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

              BY ACTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND SHAREHOLDERS

         We, the undersigned, C. Robert Henrikson and Gwenn L. Carr, being
respectively the President and Secretary of The Travelers Insurance Company, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY that:

         1.       The name of the corporation is The Travelers Insurance Company
(the "Company").

         2.       The Charter of The Travelers Insurance Company, as heretofore
amended and restated (the "Charter"), is hereby further amended as follows:

                  Section 1 of the Charter is hereby amended and restated in its
entirety to read as follows:

                           Section 1. The name of the corporation shall be
                           MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut.

         3.       The foregoing amendment of the Charter was approved and
adopted by the Board of Directors on October 26, 2005 and by the sole
shareholder of said corporation on November 23, 2005 in the manner required by
Conn. Gen. Stat. ss.ss.33-600 to 33-998, inclusive, and by the certificate of
incorporation.

         4.       Vote of the shareholders:

                  Number of shares entitled to vote:    40,000,000
                  Total voting power:                   40,000,000
                  Vote required for adoption:           20,000,001
                  Vote favoring adoption:               40,000,000


         5.       The effective date of the foregoing amendment shall be May 1,
2006.

         We hereby declare that the statements made in the foregoing certificate
are true.

         Signed at Long Island City, New York this 10 day of February, 2006.

                                          /s/ C. Robert Henrikson
                                          -----------------------
                                          C. Robert Henrikson
                                          President

                                          /s/ Gwenn L. Carr
                                          -----------------
                                          Gwenn L. Carr
                                          Secretary
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1360 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1360

 To reauthorize the Price-Anderson provisions of the Atomic Energy Act 
                                of 1954.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 3, 2001

Mr. Voinovich (for himself, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, and 
  Mr. Crapo) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To reauthorize the Price-Anderson provisions of the Atomic Energy Act 
                                of 1954.

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

SECTION 1. PRICE-ANDERSON REAUTHORIZATION.

    (a) Indemnification of Licensees.--Section 170c. of the Atomic 
Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(c)) is amended--
            (1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Licenses'' and 
        inserting ``Licensees''; and
            (2) in the first sentence, by striking ``August 1, 2002'' 
        and inserting ``August 1, 2012''.
    (b) Reports to Congress.--Section 170p. of the Atomic Energy Act of 
1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(p)) is amended by striking ``August 1, 1998'' and 
inserting ``August 1, 2008''.
    (c) Applicability.--The amendments made by this section apply with 
respect to nuclear incidents occurring on or after the date of 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
From: kdr42@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:02:36 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,

Ken Robinson

Salem, OR 97303