alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 21, 2018

a1217

Order 

Clerk

December 21, 2018

157755

JAMES RATZA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 157755

COA: 342968

Macomb CC: 2015-004231-NO

AJE, LLC d/b/a KART 2 KART, LLC,

Defendant-Appellee.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 6, 2018 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
From: Elinor Hickey

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 11:56:34 AM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Elinor Hickey

4414 Roland Avenue

Baltimore, Ma 21210
|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Coupon | Interest | Maturity | Callable | Survivor's Option | Price | CUSIP |   |
| 3.050% | Semi-Annual(†††) | 8/15/2024 | No | Yes § | 100.00 | 14912HRJ1 |   |

|                         |
|-------------------------|
|                         |  |  |
| (†††) | First Payment date 2/15/2015 |   |
|                    |   |
From: january_clouds@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:22:00 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,

Jan Knuth

Tempe, AZ 85282
No. 376.

#### Cobb *v.*Georgia.

*Robert L. Carter*and *Donald L. Hollowell*for petitioner.

*Eugene Cook,*Attorney General of Georgia, and *O. Hughel Harrison*and *John S. Harrison,*Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.

Supreme Court of Georgia. Certiorari denied.
From: donr158@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:15:33 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,

Don Robertson

Nutley, NJ 07110
From: Angie Walker

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Support Access to Preventive Care and Contraception!

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:04:48 PM

As a physician and member of the American Association of University

Women (AAUW) I ask 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.
From: Diana Murray

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Access to Preventive Care and Contraception

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 12:48:13 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.

There is nothing "religious" about allowing women to have access to preventative care and

contraception. If enacted, religious women will still be able to choose to have 20 or more children

in their lifetime if they are able and desire. However, the instances of women who freely choose

this are very few. Due to monetary and culteral restrictions, women have an interest to ensure the

viability of the children they have and , obviously, many women continue to be preyed upon by

men who claim their religious beliefs in spite of women's and children's interests.

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.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1226 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.1226

                      One Hundred Seventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
          the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two

                                 An Act

 
To require the display of the POW/MIA flag at the World War II Memorial, 
  the Korean War Veterans Memorial, and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``POW/MIA Memorial Flag Act of 2002''.
SEC. 2. DISPLAY OF POW/MIA FLAG AT WORLD WAR II MEMORIAL, KOREAN WAR 
MEMORIAL, AND VIETNAM VETERANS MEMORIAL.
    (a) Requirement for Display.--Subsection (d)(3) of section 902 of 
title 36, United States Code, is amended by striking ``The Korean War 
Veterans Memorial and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial'' and inserting 
``The World War II Memorial, the Korean War Veterans Memorial, and the 
Vietnam Veterans Memorial''.
    (b) Days for Display.--Subsection (c)(2) of that section is 
amended--
        (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as subparagraphs 
    (B) and (C), respectively; and
        (2) by inserting before subparagraph (B), as so redesignated, 
    the following new subparagraph (A):
        ``(A) in the case of display at the World War II Memorial, 
    Korean War Veterans Memorial, and Vietnam Veterans Memorial 
    (required by subsection (d)(3) of this section), any day on which 
    the United States flag is displayed;''.
    (c) Display on Existing Flagpole.--No element of the United States 
Government may construe the amendments made by this section as 
requiring the acquisition of erection of a new or additional flagpole 
for purposes of the display of the POW/MIA flag.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 12(a)



                            D&N CAPITAL CORPORATION
               Computation of ratio of earnings to fixed charges
 


                                                  For the Three Months Ended
                                                             March 31,
                                                      1999           1998
                                                  ----------------------------
                                                  (In thousands, except ratio)

           Net income                                $ 904        $ 1,003
 
           Fixed charges:
                  Advisory fees                         31             31

           Total fixed charges                          31             31
 
           Earnings before fixed charges             $ 935        $ 1,034
 
           Fixed charges, as above                      31             31
 
           Ratio of earnings to fixed charges         30.2           33.4
[Civ. No. 472.

Second Appellate District.

July 9, 1908.]

#### S. A. GOLDTREE, Respondent, v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO et al., Appellants.

Mechanics’ Liens—Employment of Lien Claimants by Subcontractor—Improper Judgment Against Contractors—Modification upon Appeal.—Lien claimants employed by a subcontractor are not entitled to a personal judgment against the *contractors;*and a judgment in their favor, including such personal judgment, will be modified upon appeal by striking out the same.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County. N. H. Conklin, Judge.

*513This is an appeal by the City of San Diego from the judgment, and was numbered 472. In this appeal, and in appeal No. 445, taken in the same case, an opinion was rendered on January 10, 1908, covering both appeals. Subsequently a rehearing was granted by the district court of appeals in both appeals. The opinion on the rehearing of this appeal, which is reported below adopts the opinion rendered on January 10, 1908. That opinion is set forth *in extenso*in the opinion rendered on rehearing in appeal No. 445, *ante,*p. 505. The further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

W. R. Andrews, for City of San Diego, Appellant.

S. F. Smith, and Collier, Smith & Hoff, for Respondent.

ON REHEARING.

TAGGART, J.

The reasons for the decision rendered by this court on January 10, 1908, in this appeal and appeal No. 445 are approved and adopted, but our attention not having been particularly called to the form of the judgment on the former presentation of this appeal, we then overlooked the fact that a personal judgment had been improperly rendered against the defendants Howard and Long.

This matter is not here presented at this time by the appellant city of San Diego, but being presented and considered in civil appeal No. 445, the decision in which is this day filed, and an order to this effect being this day entered in that case.

It is hereby ordered that the said judgment be modified by striking out the names “P. A. Howard, John T. Long” following the words “do have and recover of and from the defendants,” in paragraph 2 thereof, and that the judgment as so modified be affirmed.

Allen, P. J., and Shaw, J., concurred.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          25,334
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,368
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     15,487
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                56,159
<PP&E>                                          52,354
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,362
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 109,366
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,871
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           137
<OTHER-SE>                                      94,458
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   109,366
<SALES>                                         22,298
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,298
<CGS>                                           12,601
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,395
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,665
<INCOME-TAX>                                       400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,265
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,265
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .30


</TABLE>
#            

# CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

POWERNOTES®

With Maturities of 9 months or more from Date of Issue

Registration No.  333-124310

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (3)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO.  651                                                                                   Trade Date:  09/26/05

(To Prospectus Supplement dated July 7, 2005 &

  Prospectus dated May 13,2005)                                                                                    Issue Date:   09/29/05

The Date of this Pricing SupplementSeptember 26, 2005

SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION OR REPAYMENT

 CUSIP                                                                                                                                   Date and terms of redemption or

     or       Stated                                                                   Interest                                       repayment (includingany

Common  Interest                      Price to  Discounts &        Payment     Survivors                  applicable regular or special

  Code      Rate (1)   Maturity  Public (2) Commissions       Frequency       Option  Yes/No     record dates)

14911QK42   4.05%         12/15/07        100%                0.450%           Semi-Annually                YES         NO                                                                                                                                                                

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

Principal                                                                                 1st Payment             Day         

Amount                  Proceeds                  Dealer                           Date                   Count

$1,907,000.00         $1,898,418.50         ABN AMRO Inc.        06/15/06                               30/360    

Original Issue DiscountNote:                                                                          Total Amount of OID:

____  Yes                X   No                                                                                  N/A

The interest rates on the PowerNotes® may be changed by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation from time to time, but any such change will not affect the interest rate on any PowerNotes® offered prior to the effective date of the change.  After the issuance of the PowerNotes® covered by this

Pricing Supplement, $923.149 mm principal amount of PowerNotes® remain available for sale

pursuant to the accompanying Prospectus Supplement.

Expressed as a percentage of aggregate principal amount.  Actual Price to Public may be less, and will be determined by prevailing market prices at the time of purchase as set forth in the confirmation sheet.
From: Jim Sheridan

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Contraception Religious Exemptions

Date: Saturday, August 13, 2011 12:49:39 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.

Jim S.

Houston, TX
#### In the Matter of the City Gas Company.

—Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
## glneerlng

# ources LLC Civil • Mining • Environmental April25, 2016 U.S. Department ofTran sportation Docket Management S ys tem 1200 New J er sey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 415 N Center St., Longview, TX 75601 Office (903) 234-4570 Fa x (903) 234-4582 Web: www.engr-res.com Email: info@engr-res
. com

Re: Petition for Amendment to Exemption No . 11632 Issued to Engineering Resources LLC Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (Docket No. FAA-2016- 0574) D ear Sir or Madam: Engineering Re sources LLC (herein referTed to as "ER ") was i ssued Exemption No. 11632 (herein refened to as "Exemption") on May 20, 2015 , allowing commercial operations of the SenseFly eBee and SenseFly eBee RTK. ER requests an amendment to the Exemption to allow commercial operation of the additional UAS as listed under Docket ID FAA-2007-3330, "Appro ved Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Make /Model under Section 333", so long as such operations are conducted within and under the Conditions and Limitations of the Exemption. Due to this fact , ER contends that this amendment petition is non-contro ver sial and we respectfully reque st that it be approve s ununarily . G RESOURCES LLC
Exhibit 32

Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)

The undersigned,
as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Virginia Financial Group, Inc., respectively, certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006, which accompanies this certification fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Virginia Financial Group, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), and no purchaser or seller
of securities or any other person shall be entitled to rely upon the foregoing certification for any purpose. The undersigned expressly disclaim any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.



|                     |  |                                                     
|-------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 8, 2006 |  | /s/ O. R. Barham, Jr.                               
|                     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer               
|                     | 
|Date: August 8, 2006 |  | /s/ Jeffrey W. Farrar                               
|                     |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer