alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                        NEW CENTURY FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                                IRREVOCABLE PROXY

         The undersigned parties (each a "Brookhaven Party" and collectively the
"Brookhaven Parties"), stockholders of New Century Financial Corporation, a
Delaware corporation (the "Company"), hereby irrevocably appoint and constitute
Robert K. Cole and Brad A. Morrice, and each of them, the attorneys and proxies
of the undersigned with full power of substitution, to the full extent of the
undersigned's rights under law with respect to the Shares (as defined below), to
represent the undersigned and vote the Shares as described below. The Brookhaven
Parties acknowledge that this proxy is irrevocable and is coupled with an
interest.

         The attorneys and proxies named above shall be empowered and may
exercise this proxy to the maximum extent to vote all of the Shares at any time
and from time to time at any regular or special meeting of the stockholders of
the Company, however called, and in any action by written consent of the
stockholders of the Company without a meeting (i) in favor of each and every
action, agreement and transaction approved or recommended by the Company's Board
of Directors and submitted by the Company's Board of Directors to the
stockholders of the Company for their approval and (ii) against each and every
action, agreement and transaction as directed by the Company's Board of
Directors.

         For purposes of this proxy, "SHARES" means the number of shares of
Common Stock of the Company beneficially owned (as such term is defined in Rule
13d-3 of the Exchange Act) by the Brookhaven Parties calculated by taking the
difference between (i) the number representing all of the shares of Common Stock
of the Company beneficially owned (as such term is defined in Rule 13d-3 of the
Exchange Act) by any and all of the Brookhaven Parties on the record date for
the applicable meeting or consent of holders of the voting stock of the Company
and (ii) the number representing 34.9% of the total number of votes holders of
the Company's Common and Preferred Stock are entitled to cast as of such record
date at such meeting or by such consent.

         This proxy shall be binding upon the heirs, successors and assigns of
the undersigned.

         Dated:  November 11, 2000
                          --

         BROOKHAVEN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC

         By:  /s/ Vincent Carrino
             ----------------------------------------
         Title:   President
                -------------------------------------

         WATERSHED PARTNERS, L.P.

         By:  /s/ Vincent Carrino
             ----------------------------------------
         Title:   President
                -------------------------------------

             /s/ Vincent Carrino
         --------------------------------------------
         Vincent Carrino
LEGAL PParreen, ay sags _ If, Page | of |
PUBLICATION & Rng iAimON fEGC-( 20541 4G SEP 1 297
BRANCH ONS

As of: September 01, 2011
Received: August 15, 2011

Status: Posted

PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: September 01, 2011
Tracking No. 80ee18d0

(Comments Due: September 30, 2011
Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0017
Requirement for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers to Provide Coverage of
Preventive Services under the PatientProtection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0017-0038
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services
under Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment

Document: IRS-2010-0017-0123
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: Sybil Kohl
Address:
18103 N.E. 159th Ave
Brush Prairie, WA, 98606-8738
Email: sybkohl@msn.com
Phone: 360-666-1313

General Comment

I strongly support the new policy requiring health-insurance plans to cover birth control without a
co-pay, CMS-9992-IFC2. Thank you for this important improvement to women's health care.

I also want you to know that I am concerned that certain religious employers may be allowed to
opt out of the requirements. All women should have access to contraceptive coverage, regardless
of where they work.

This policy finally should make near-universal access to birth control a reality for all women who
use it.

Improving women's access to birth control is positive in so many ways. A woman who can plan
when to have a family is able to participate in society more fully. Allowing women to space their
pregnancies contributes to healthy childbearing. And ultimately, fewer unintended pregnancies
can reduce the need for abortion.

Thank you for following science-based recommendations and making women's health a priority.

http://fdms.erulemaking .net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectlId=09000... 9/1/2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001036148
<NAME> CYBERTEL, COMMUNICATIONS CORP.

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         1831763
<SECURITIES>                                   4736250
<RECEIVABLES>                                   256761
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               6987334
<PP&E>                                          492321
<DEPRECIATION>                                  237977
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7737424
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           382839
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          3
<COMMON>                                          5775
<OTHER-SE>                                     7296132
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   7737424
<SALES>                                         496191
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                496191
<CGS>                                           253907
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   253907
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2303972
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              609193
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (2670881)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (2670881)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1375369
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.50)


</TABLE>
From: robin@howmac.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:48:26 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.

Sincerely,

Robin Howard

Sedro Woolley, WA 98284
No. 160.

#### La Maur, Inc., *v.*L. S. Donaldson Co. et al.

*Benedict Deinard*for petitioner.

*Dean Laurence*and *Herbert I. Sherman*for respondents.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
From: bbkuenzi@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:29:52 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,

Betty Kuenzi

Belleville, WI 53508
From: konanoel@stevesauer.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:37:19 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,

Mary Sauer

Solvang, CA 93464
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1375 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                    September 27, 2008.
Whereas the prevalence of runaway and homelessness among youth is staggering, 
        with studies suggesting that every year, between 1,600,000 and 2,800,000 
        youth live on the streets of the United States;
Whereas running away from home is widespread, and youth aged 12 to 17 are at a 
        higher risk of homelessness than adults;
Whereas runaway youth most often are youth who have been expelled from their 
        homes by their families; physically, sexually, and emotionally abused at 
        home; discharged by State custodial systems without adequate transition 
        plans; separated from their parents by death and divorce; too poor to 
        secure their own basic needs; and ineligible or unable to access 
        adequate medical or mental health resources;
Whereas effective programs supporting runaway youth and assisting youth and 
        their families in remaining at home succeed because of partnerships 
        created among families, community-based human service agencies, law 
        enforcement agencies, schools, faith-based organizations, and 
        businesses;
Whereas preventing youth from running away from home and supporting youth in 
        high-risk situations is a family, community, and national priority;
Whereas the future well-being of the Nation is dependent on the opportunities 
        provided for youth and families to acquire the knowledge, skills, and 
        abilities necessary for youth to develop into safe, healthy, and 
        productive adults;
Whereas the National Network for Youth and its members advocate on behalf of 
        runaway and homeless youth, and provide an array of community-based 
        support to address their critical needs;
Whereas the National Runaway Switchboard provides crisis intervention and 
        referrals to reconnect runaway youth to their families and link youth to 
        local resources that provide positive alternatives to running away from 
        home; and
Whereas the National Network for Youth and National Runaway Switchboard are 
        cosponsoring National Runaway Prevention Month in November to increase 
        public awareness of the life circumstances of youth in high-risk 
        situations, and the need for safe, healthy, and productive alternatives, 
        resources, and support for youth, families, and communities: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes and supports the 
goals and ideals of National Runaway Prevention Month.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
<PAGE>

[LAIDLAW LOGO]

  LAIDLAW INTERNATIONAL, INC. - 55 SHUMAN BLVD. - NAPERVILLE - ILLINOIS - 60563

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

December 1, 2003

Securities and Exchange Commission
Judiciary Plaza
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.   20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

           RE:      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
                    ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in connection with the filing of the Form 10-K of
Laidlaw International, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended August 31, 2003,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 1, 2003 (the
"Report"), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, that, to
such officer's knowledge:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods
                  expressed in the Report.

/s/ K. E. Benson
----------------
Name:  Kevin E. Benson
Title: President and Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Douglas A. Carty
--------------------
Name:  Douglas A. Carty
Title: Senior Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 12.1**

**PACCAR Financial Corp.**

**COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**

**PURSUANT TO SEC REPORTING REQUIREMENTS (1)**

(Millionsof Dollars)
| ** **                          | ** ** | **Year ended December 31** | ** ** |
|-------------------------------------|------------|-------------------------------------------|------------|
| ** **                          | ** ** | **2006**                                  | ** ** | **2005** | ** ** | **2004** | ** ** | **2003** | ** ** | **2002** | ** ** |
|                                |       |                                      |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| FIXED CHARGES                       |       |                                      |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Interest expense                    | ** ** | **$**                                     | **163.9**  |   | $ | 101.2 |   | $ | 67.9 |   | $ | 78.8 |   | $ | 114.7 |   |
|                                |       |                                      |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Portion of rentals  deemed interest | ** ** | **1.5**                                   |       | 1.4 |   | 1.4 |   | 1.3 |   | 1.2 |   |
|                                |       |                                      |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| TOTAL FIXED CHARGES                 | ** ** | **$**                                     | **165.4**  |   | $ | 102.6 |   | $ | 69.3 |   | $ | 80.1 |   | $ | 115.9 |   |
|                                |       |                                      |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| EARNINGS                            |       |                                      |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Income before taxes                 | ** ** | **$**                                     | **136.3**  |   | $ | 120.0 |   | $ | 111.4 |   | $ | 78.1 |   | $ | 45.0 |   |
|                                |       |                                      |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| FIXED CHARGES                       | ** ** | **165.4**                                 |       | 102.6 |   | 69.3 |   | 80.1 |   | 115.9 |   |
|                                |       |                                      |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| EARNINGS AS DEFINED                 | ** ** | **$**                                     | **301.7**  |   | $ | 222.6 |   | $ | 180.7 |   | $ | 158.2 |   | $ | 160.9 |   |
|                                |       |                                      |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES  | ** ** | **1.82**                                  | **x**      | 2.17 | x | 2.61 | x | 1.98 | x | 1.39 | x |

 

----

(1)                                  The methodof computing the ratio of earnings to fixed charges shown above complies withSEC reporting requirements, but differs from the method called for in theSupport Agreement between the Company and PACCAR as shown in Exhibit 12.2.

 

1

----
[Civ. No. 411.

Third Appellate District.

*April 7,*1908.]

#### SAMUEL HILL, Respondent, v. JOSEPH HOEFER et al., Appellants.

Action to Quiet Title—Laches—Burden of Proof—Reservation— Boundaries—Unstable Finding and Judgment—Prescription— *Evidence—Equities.—Held,*on the authority of *Hill*v. *Barner,*No. 410, *supra,*this day decided, in reference to the foregoing subject, that the judgment and order denying a new trial in this case should be reversed.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Shasta County, and from an order denying a new trial. Charles M. Head, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court in the case of *Hill v. Barner et al.,*No. 410, *supra.*

Sweeney & Tillotson, and Reid & Dozier, for Appellants, Joseph Hoefer et al.

Wm. Singer, Jr., Guy Shoup, and G. O. Perry, for Central Pacific Railway Company, Appellant.

Braynard *&*Kimball, and T. W. H. Shanahan, for Respondent.

HART, J.

The facts and the law involved in this case are admittedly the same as those involved in *Hill*v. *Barner etc. et al.,*No. 410, this day decided.

A motion was made to dismiss the appeal in this case, but the same is without merit, and is, therefore, denied.

Upon the authority of *Hill*v. *Barner et al., ante,*p. 58, [96 Pac. 111], and for the reasons therein stated, the judgment and order are reversed.

Chipman, P. J., and Burnett, J., concurred.
#### Eugene E. Warfield, Respondent, v. John D. Trickey, Appellant.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with' costs to abide the event. Opinion by

Haight, J.
No. 573, Misc.

#### In re Disbarment of Brodstein.

It

is Ordered that Ellis Brodstein, of Reading, Pennsylvania, be suspended from the practice of the law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within forty days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of the law in this Court.