alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: benjaminhorvat@ymail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:06:41 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,

Benjamin Horvat

Warrenville, IL 60555
### EPA Public Hearing Testimony Cindy Liverance American Lung Association in Colorado Hello, I am Cindy Liverance, the Vice Presidentsof Program for the American Lung Association in Colorado and I appreciate having the opportunity to speak with you today
. While I am in the Vice Pres ident of Programs for the ALA-Colorado , I am also an asthmatic and the mother of an asthmatic
. The ALA issued its annual State of the Air report each spring and th is year's report showed U-{lt warmer temperatures led to much worse ozone pollution in cities across the nation i n 2010 to 20132 , including

.here in Denver
. Over 147 million people lived in counties that suffered too many unhealthy ozone days during that period. Even though we've made great s trides in cutting air pollution , warmer temperatures will make it much more like ly that we will see more years with too many unhealthy ozone days. For the millions of American who live with chronic lung disease, high ozone can m ake if difficult for them to breathe , cause them to cough and wheeze and send them to the emergency room and hospitals
. Breathing high ozone can even increase their risk of dying early. Children growing up where ozone levels are high may risk having lung diseases later in life. We need the Clean Power P la n to protect public health
. Power plant pollution makes people sick and cuts lives short. The ALA urges the EPA to set a final plan within a year that provides the strongest limits on carbon pollutions
. Anything less short changes our health
. As a person who lives with asthma but also likes to exercise outdoor and I have had to learn to base my outside activities on the level of air pollution. I don 't like exercising indoor but on high pollution days I have no choice as I don't want to breathe in toxic air pollutants. But having to make the decis io n to exercise indoor or outdoors is a simp le choice compared to some of the choices made when my daughter couldn't' breathe becau se she was playing outside at school on high pollution days
. There is nothing more terrifying than having your child say "I cant' breathe , Mommy, help me. " You feel helpless. My daughter is grown now and can make her own decisions on when to be outside but I want EPA to adopt the strongest s tandard s in the Clean Power Plan that will cut carbon pollution so other Colorado children will have brighter, healthier futures ahead of them
. The ALA-Colorado hosts a weeklong summer camp {Champ Camp) specifically for children with asthma. Champ Camp took place las t week and I asked all of the campers ifthe air they breathed was im portant and they all sa id "yes". One comment was "why are adults keeping our air dirty? " I had no answer. Please help provide the answer. In closing I submit to you photos of a few of these Colorado children and volunteers who live with asthma that continues to be affected by increasing poor air quality. Help us help them. Thank you, Cindy Liverance Vice President of Programs {303) 847-0267 Cliverance@lungs
. org
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1526

ROMANO LATAGAN OMALIN,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A72-349-382)

Submitted: March 25, 2005 Decided: April 12, 2005

Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Romano Latagan Omalin, Petitioner Pro Se. M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright,

Victor Matthew Lawrence, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Romano Latagan Omalin, a native and citizen of the

Philippines, petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming, without opinion, the

immigration judge’s denial of his application for a waiver of

inadmissibility pursuant to § 212(i) of the Immigration and

Nationality Act (“INA”), as codified at 8 U.S.C.A. § 1182(i) (West

1999 & Supp. 2004), and the immigration judge’s denial of his

application for adjustment of status.

The Attorney General previously filed a motion to dismiss

the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. Because we

agreed that the court lacks jurisdiction to review the immigration

judge’s denial of Omalin’s application for a § 212(i) waiver, we

granted the motion to dismiss to the extent that Omalin’s petition

challenged this denial. We now address the remaining issues raised

in Omalin’s petition.

Omalin first contends that the Board’s use of the summary

affirmance procedure as set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) (2004)

violated his rights under the Due Process Clause. This argument,

however, has been squarely rejected by our decision in Blanco de

Belbruno v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 272 (4th Cir. 2004). In Blanco de

Belbruno, we held that “the [Board]’s streamlining regulations do

not violate an alien’s rights to due process of law under the Fifth
- 3 -

Amendment.” Id. at 283. Accordingly, Omalin is not entitled to

relief on this claim.

Omalin also argues that the immigration judge’s comments

regarding the presence of his young child at his immigration

hearing evidenced such a bias on the part of the immigration judge

as to violate his right to due process of law. Because the remarks

of the immigration judge fall well short of displaying a

“deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment

impossible,” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994), we

find that Omalin has failed to show judicial bias and therefore

cannot establish a violation of his due process rights.

We therefore deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 31.2**WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Yuyun Tristan Kuo, Vice President of Finance of Cuisine Solutions, Inc. certify that:1. I have reviewed this Annual report on Form 10-K of Cuisine Solutions, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this annual report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in thisannual report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Registrant as of,and for, the periods presented in this annual report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and Iare responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have a) designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this reportis being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented inthis report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.     Dated: September 22, 2005     /s/ YUYUN TRISTAN KUO     Yuyun Tristan Kuo  Vice President of Finance, Treasurer and Corporate Secretary  (Principal Financial and Accounting Official)
No. 556.

#### Bridgeport Federal Savings & Loan Assn. *v.*Federal Home Loan Bank Board et al.

*William B. Koch*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Cox, Acting Assistant Attorney General Guilfoyle*and *Alan S. Rosenthal*for the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, and *Henry W. Sawyer III*and *Raymond K. Denworth*for Quaker City Federal Savings & Loan Assn., respondents.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
| ****                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |   |
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
| About                 The U.S. Courts | Newsroom | Library                 | Court Links | FAQs |                 Employment Opportunities | Contact                 Us | Search

**This page is maintained by the Administrative                 Office of the U.S. Courts on behalf of the U.S. Courts.**The purpose of this site is to function as a clearinghouse for information                 from and about the Judicial Branch of the U.S. Government. 

Privacy and Security Notices |

|  |
|--|
---

---

This report was made possible by the many individuals involved with the operation of juvenile and
family drug courts in the U.S.who contributed information on the programs summarized in this
publication. We are deeply grateful to them for compiling this information as well as for sharing
their insights regarding policy and other issues relevant to implementing and sustaining juvenile
and family drug courts over the long term. Most of all, we thank them for their initiative,
leadership and dedication in launching these programs in their respective jurisdictions. As this
report illustrates, juvenile and family drug courts are clearly much more complex programs to
oversee than the traditional adjudication process that would otherwise be applicable. However, the
impact that juvenile and family drug courts can achieve � and have already achieved during the
few years in which they have operated � can be immeasurable for both the court system, the
individual participant, and the community.

We also extend special appreciation to Judge John T. Parnham, who established the adult,
juvenile and family drug courts in the First Judicial Circuit in Escambia County (Pensacola),
Florida and serves as the drug court judge for the juvenile and family drug court dockets in that
district; Robin Wright, Drug Court Coordinator for the First Judicial Circuit in Escambia County;
Dr. Michael Smith, Director of the Substance Abuse Clinic at Lincoln Hospital in New York City,
who has been instrumental in developing the treatment components of many drug courts; Judge
Thomas Merrigan, First Justice for the Franklin County, Massachusetts District Court and who
presides over the combined juvenile and family drug court in that jurisdiction; and Robin
Kimbrough, Associate Director of the Institute for Families and Society at the University of South
Carolina; for their review of the draft survey instrument developed to capture the information
presented in this report as well as for their on-going guidance and insights regarding juvenile and
family drug court operations. We are also grateful to the staff of the OJP Drug Courts Program
Office for their assistance in compiling the information upon which this report is based and in
preparing this report for final publication. In particular, we extend our very special thanks to
Marilyn Roberts and Jennifer Brophy for their guidance and many helpful suggestions that have
been incorporated into this document and for their on-going assistance despite the many other
demands for their attention.

Readers of this report are encouraged to contact the judges and other program officials listed in
the Appendix to further discuss the programs described as well as to contact the OJP Drug Court
Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project for additional information as well as technical assistance in exploring the feasibility of adapting these programs to other
jurisdictions.

---

















III. Program Evaluation and Assessment



IV. Planning and Implementation Issues Encountered and Strategies for Resolving Them



V. Special Issues Addressed





Appendix:



---

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted form SGI
International's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1998,
and is qualified in its entirely by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000737955
<NAME>                        SGI International
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    0
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                     1.000
<CASH>                            239,885
<SECURITIES>                      402,500
<RECEIVABLES>                     505,726
<ALLOWANCES>                       84,460
<INVENTORY>                        64,371
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                1,374,244
<PP&E>                          1,687,636
<DEPRECIATION>                    920,941
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  4,807,508
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           5,636,737
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           1,449,348
<PREFERRED>                           641
<COMMON>                       45,688,545
<OTHER-SE>                    (48,072,513)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    4,807,508
<SALES>                         4,600,190
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                4,643,989
<CGS>                           3,456,185
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   3,456,185
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                5,970,202
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                760,211
<INCOME-PRETAX>                (5,542,609)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            (5,542,609)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                   (5,542,609)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       (0.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (0.50)
        


</TABLE>
No. 597.

#### Wight et al. *v.*Montana-Dakota Utilities Co.

*William G. Sumners, Jr.*for petitioners.

*Arthur F. Lamey*for respondent.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
From: ret7army@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. At the minimum 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,

Tim O'Reilly

Ordway, CO 81063
**Exhibit 10.2**

**AMENDMENT TO PRIVATE PLACEMENT AGREEMENT**

          The following provisions are hereby incorporated into, and are hereby made a part of, that certain Private Placement Agreement dated July 11, 2006 (the “Agreement”) between Material Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Continental Advisors SA, a corporation incorporated under the laws of Luxembourg (“CA”) and such provisions are effective retroactively to the date of the Agreement (the “Effective Date”).  All capitalized terms in this Amendment to Employment Agreement, to the extent not otherwise defined herein, shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Agreement.				1.       The first sentence of paragraph 6 of the Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced as follows:

> 
6.       The appointment and authorization of CA under paragraph 1 of this Agreement shall terminate 18 months from the effective date of this Agreement or at such time as may be mutually agreed upon by the Company and CA (the “termination Date”) provided the Company shall remain responsible for the reimbursement, indemnification, and contribution obligations of the Company under paragraph 4 of this Agreement which shall survive any termination of CA’s appointment and authorization hereunder. 					The remainder of paragraph 6 of the Agreement shall remain unchanged.

2.       All other provisions of the Agreement remain unchanged.			          **IN WITNESS WHEREOF,** the Parties have caused this Amendment to Private Placement Agreement to be duly executed and delivered as of August 29, 2007.**COMPANY:                                                               CA:****MATERIAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,                   CONTINENTAL ADVISORS SA,**a Delaware corporation                                                a Luxembourg corporation   /s/ Robert M. Bernstein                                                   /s/ Riccardo Moraldi                                   By:  Robert M. Bernstein                                              By:   Riccardo Moraldi			Its:  Chief Executive Officer                                           Its:   Director

----