alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Docket: EBSA-2010-0018 

Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of 

Preventive Services Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0018-0002 

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services 

under Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment 

Document: EBSA-2010-0018-DRAFT-0075 

Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684 

Submitter Information 

Name: Mary Ann ROWE 

Address: 

4638 31st Roas, South 

Arlington, VA, 22206 

Email: martardel@aol.com 

Phone: (703) 671-1277 

General Comment 

The HHS Interim Final Rule published on Aug 3 which authorizes HRSA to mandate that 

sterilization and all contraceptive drugs approved by FDA be covered in all PPACA Health care 

plans must be amended. Most heinously, this interim final rule extends to abortifacients, including 

most notably Ulipristal or "ELLA". 

The narrow religious exemptions extend only to employers who have "the inculcation of religious 

values" and who are church organizations under the tax code. This exemption thereby excludes 

Catholic colleges, universities and hospitals as well as general charities. 

This interim final rule must be amended to eliminate contraceptives and sterilization and the 

exemption must be broadend to include all Catholic employers. 

MAR

PUBLIC SUBMISSION 

As of: September 06, 2011 

Received: September 05, 2011 

Status: Pending_Post 

Tracking No. 80f11adf 

Comments Due: September 30, 2011

Submission Type: Web

Page 1 of 1

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectId=0900... 9/6/2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS
OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON PAGES 3 AND 4 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE
YEAR-TO-DATE, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          36,085
<SECURITIES>                                     6,883
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,849
<ALLOWANCES>                                        76
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                48,857
<PP&E>                                           5,017
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,360
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  51,514
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,578
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        55,638
<OTHER-SE>                                    (12,702)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    51,514
<SALES>                                          8,649
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,024
<CGS>                                              627
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,942
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    23
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 301
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,899)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,899)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,899)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.40)
        

</TABLE>
From: Unrau, Lucia

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: religious refusal concerns

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:49:52 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.

Dr. Lucia Unrau
EXHIBIT 10.17


 


AMENDMENT TO
EQUITY PURCHASE AGREEMENT


 


AMENDMENT
TO EQUITY PURCHASE AGREEMENT dated as of April 28, 2016 (the “Amendment”), made by and between Zonzia Media,
Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) and Kodiak Capital Group, LLC (the “Investor”)


 


WITNESSETH:


 


WHEREAS,
the Company previously executed and delivered to the Investor an Equity Purchase Agreement dated February 10, 2016 (the “EPA”)
and


 


WHEREAS,
the Company and Investor desire to execute this Amendment which amends the EPA


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the agreements hereinafter set forth, and for other good and valuable consideration,
the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged Company and Investor agree that the EPA is hereby amended as follows.


 


1.
Section 4.3 is hereby amended to read as follows:


 


“Section 4.3           CAPITALIZATION.
As of the date hereof, the authorized capital stock of the Company consists of 2,200,000,000 shares, of which 2,000,000,000 shares
are common stock, par value $0.001 per share, and 200,000,000 shares are preferred stock, par value $0.001 per share, of which
234,343,197 shares of common stock were issued and outstanding as of December 31, 2015. There are no outstanding securities which
are convertible into shares of Common Stock, whether such conversion is currently exercisable or exercisable only upon some future
date or the occurrence of some event in the future. All of the outstanding shares of Common Stock of the Company have been duly
and validly authorized and issued and are fully paid and non-assessable.


 


2. Miscellaneous.


 


			(a) Except as expressly amended and modified by this Amendment, the EPA is and shall continue
to be in full force and effect in accordance with the terms thereof.



 


			(b) This Amendment may be executed by the parties hereto in counterparts, and all of such counterparts
taken together shall be deemed to constitute one and the same instrument.



 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, Company and Investor have duly executed this Amendment to Equity Purchase Agreement as of the day and year
first above written.


 


	ZONZIA MEDIA, INC.	 	KODIAK CAPITAL GROUP, LLC
	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Johnathan Adair	 	By: 	/s/ Ryan C Hodson
	 	
        Johnathan Adair

        Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	Ryan C Hodson

Managing Member
From: Maureen White

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: religious refusal exemptions

Date: Sunday, August 14, 2011 6:00:54 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.
From: sbartlett07@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:01:48 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,

Susan Bartlett

Houston, TX 77040
1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

______________________________

No. 00-30769

______________________________

EMMETT HYDE,

Plaintiff - Appellee

VERSUS

STANLEY TOOLS, a Product Group of the Stanley Works,

Defendant - Appellant

______________________________

No. 00-30959

______________________________

STANLEY TOOLS, a Product Group of the Stanley Works,

Plaintiff - Appellant

VERSUS

MADISON MILL, INC.,

Defendant - Appellee

___________________________________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(98-CV-2757 & 00-CV-1023) 

___________________________________________________

December 3, 2001
*

 District Judge of the Western District of Texas, sitting by

designation. 

** Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

2

Before JOLLY and PARKER, Circuit Judges, and SPARKS*, District

Judge.

PER CURIAM:**

AFFIRMED. See 5TH CIR. R. 47.6.
Merrimack,

Jan. 6, 1914.

#### Edward Dow *v.*George H. Dow.

Whether a witness is hostile, and whether for that reason he may be impeached or contradicted by the party calling him, are questions of fact determinable by the trial court.

An affidavit which contains statements relevant to material issues and inconsistent with the affiant’s testimony at the trial is admissible in evidence for the purpose of impeachment.

Case, for the alienation of the affections of the plaintiff’s wife. Trial by jury and verdict for the plaintiff. Transferred from the April term, 1913, of the superior court by *Plummer,*J.

The defendant introduced in evidence a libel for divorce brought by the plaintiff’s wife, charging extreme cruelty, setting forth specific acts, and alleging that by his inhuman conduct the plaintiff compelled her to leave his home. The plaintiff’s wife, who was hostile to his case, was called by him as a witness, and testified generally in support of.the charges in the libel and in denial of intimacy with the defendant. She identified her signature to an affidavit produced by the plaintiff’s counsel, which read as follows: “I wish to state to Mr. Stark, my husband’s attorney, that I am sorry that my divorce action was ever started between myself and my husband, Edward Dow. There never would have been this trouble between Edward and myself if I had not listened to the advice of George Dow; but I am through with George now, and I have acted unwisely and am sorry. I have informed Kirk D. Pierce, my attorney, to have my divorce action dropped.” The defendant excepted to the admission of the affidavit in evidence.

*John M. Stark,*for the plaintiff.

*James A. Broderick,*for the defendant.

Parsons, C. J.

The suit was for the alienation of the affections of the plaintiff’s wife. There was proof of an action for divorce by the wife against the plaintiff, the libel being in evidence. The plaintiff called his wife as a witness and, having proved the signature by the wife, was permitted to read to the jury a statement in the form of an affidavit signed and sworn to by her. Whether *151there was an error of law in the admission of this affidavit is the sole question in the case.

Whether the witness was hostile, and whether the plaintiff, having called the witness, should be permitted to contradict and impeach her, were questions of fact determined at the trial. *Whitman*v. *Morey,*63 N. H. 448, 456. ■ The statements of the affidavit are relevant to issues which must have been material at the trial: an explanation of the allegations of the libel for divorce, and the responsibility of the defendant for the “trouble” between the plaintiff and his wife. The witness having testified differently, the affidavit was admissible to discredit her testimony. *Whitman*v. *Morey, supra; Hurlburt*v. *Bellows,*50 N. H. 105, 116.

*Exception overruled.*

All concurred.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BMJ
     MEDICAL MANAGEMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY
     PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
     REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                            613,000
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  54,981,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (27,979,000)
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               36,533,000
<PP&E>                                         15,230,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  1,798,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                117,322,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          11,168,000
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                     4,957,000
<COMMON>                                           18,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     57,958,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  117,322,000
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               38,114,000
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  38,120,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              2,010,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,016,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,016,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (3,038,000)
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,054,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0<F1>
<FN>
<F1> AMOUNT IS ANTI-DILUTIVE
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23


     CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
     _______________________________________________________



BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND STOCKHOLDERS OF FIRST KEYSTONE
CORPORATION:


     We consent to the use of our reports dated January 24, 2005,
with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of First Keystone
Corporation and Subsidiary as of December 31, 2004, and 2003, and
the related consolidated statements of income, changes in
stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 2004, management's
assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2004, which reports are included herein.




                           /s/ J. H. Williams & Co., LLP
                           J. H. Williams & Co., LLP



January 24, 2005
Kingston, Pennsylvania



                               69
Exhibit 10.59



 




Exhibit 10.59




AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE COLE NATIONAL

GROUP, INC. 1999 SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT BENEFIT PLAN



     WHEREAS, Cole National Group, Inc. (the “Company”) adopted the Cole
National Group, Inc. 1999 Supplemental Retirement Benefit Plan effective as of
January 1, 1999 (the “Plan”);



     WHEREAS, the Company adopted Amendment No. 1 to the Plan dated as of
January 25, 2002;



     WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 6.1 of the Plan, the Company hereby amends
the Plan, as provided herein, as Amendment No. 2 to the Plan; and



     WHEREAS, the Company hereby adopts this Amendment No. 2. Words and
phrases used herein with initial capital letters that are not defined herein
shall have the meaning provided in the Plan.



Section 1



          Section 3.2 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as
follows:



     “SECTION 3.2. Time of Payment. A Participant’s (or Beneficiary’s)
Supplemental Retirement Benefit shall commence at the same time and under the
same conditions as the benefits payable to the Participant (or Beneficiary)
under the Pension Plan, or at such time and under such conditions as may be
provided in the Instrument Designating Participant applicable to the
Participant.”



Section 2



          Section 4.1 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as
follows:



     “SECTION 4.1. Vesting. A Participant shall be vested in his Supplemental
Retirement Benefit in accordance with the vesting provisions of the Pension
Plan, or at such time and under such conditions as may be provided in the
Instrument Designating Participant applicable to the Participant.”



	 	 	 
	Dated as of January 23, 2004	 	
COLE NATIONAL GROUP, INC.
	 	 	
By: /s/ Leslie D. Dunn



	 	 	
Title: Senior Vice President
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6911

ARTHUR LEE BRANCH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RONNIE INGRAM, Officer; DWIGHT KORNEGAY,

Officer,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

LENOIR COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; KINSTON

POLICE DEPARTMENT; M. BOWEN, Officer,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District

Judge. (CA-94-202-CT-BO)

Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 26, 1997

Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur Lee Branch, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Ray Wooten, WARD &

SMITH, P.A., New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellees.
2
3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying relief

on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Branch v. Ingram, No. CA-94-202-CT-BO (E.D.N.C. Feb. 6 &

Aug. 11, 1995; May 31, 1996). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED