alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit








Aflac Incorporated 1st Quarter 2016 10-Q
EXHIBIT 10.16


	
						
	NOTICE OF GRANT OF AWARD
	 
	AFLAC INCORPORATED

	AND AWARD AGREEMENT
	 
	ID:  58-1167100

	 
	 
	 
	Worldwide Headquarters

	 
	 
	 
	1932 Wynnton Road

	 
	 
	 
	Columbus, Georgia  31999

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	Award Number:

	 
	 
	 
	Plan: LTIP

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 




Effective <________>, you have been granted a restricted stock award of <____> shares of Aflac Incorporated (the Company) common stock.  The current total value of the Award at the date of issue 
was <________>.


These award shares are restricted until the earlier of the date shown below, or the cessation of your membership on the Board of Directors for reasons of death, disability, retirement (i.e., the cessation of membership on the Board of Directors either (1) after ten (10) years of service on the Board of Directors or (2) as of the date of the first annual Shareholders’ meeting of the Company on or after the date you attain age 75 and are no longer eligible to stand for reelection as per the Bylaws of the Company).


	
			
	Shares
	 
	Full Vest

	<______>
	 
	<__________>






Summary of Award Terms:
These shares of restricted stock will be held in book entry form in the custody of the Company until the restrictions thereon have lapsed.  Subject to the restrictions set forth in the Plan and the Restricted Stock Award Agreement relating to this award, you shall possess all incidents of ownership with respect to the award shares, including the right to vote such shares, provided that all dividends with respect to such shares will be recorded as additional Restricted Stock and held in book entry form until the restrictions on the underlying shares shall have lapsed.  Upon vesting of the underlying shares, as described in Paragraph D above, and within thirty (30) days thereafter, the additional Restricted Stock attributable to dividends on the underlying shares shall be released (paid) to the Participant free of the restrictions described in this Agreement. By your signature and the Company's signature below, you and the Company agree that this award is granted under and governed by the terms and conditions of the Company's 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan (as Amended and Restated March 14, 2012) and the Restricted Stock Award Agreement relating to this award, which is attached to and made a part of this document.	
						
	 
	 
	 

	By Daniel P. Amos
	 
	 
	 
	Date
	 

	Aflac Incorporated
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	Date
From: amslerbarry@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:46:24 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,

Joan Amsler

Larkspur, CO 80118
From: dwigk@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:25:41 PM

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:

I urge you to rescind the mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by

private health insurance with no co-pay to patients. 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 (such as Ella and Plan B)

can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be compelled by the federal government

to subsidize services to which they hold strong religious objection. I encourage you to reverse course

and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory preventive services.

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization or 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.

Sincerely,

Dena Kline

Tomball, TX 77377
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**








CERTIFICATION
      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 Quarterly Report of Vail Banks, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Brady T. Burt, Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





1.
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company.







/s/
      Brady T.
      Burt


Brady
      T.
      Burt


Chief
      Financial Officer


August
      11, 2006
From: Angie Bray

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Preventative Care and Contraception

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 1:14:40 AM

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.

angie@angiebray.com

310.636.1490 Studio

310.869.6672 Cell
EXHIBIT 23.1
 
 CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP
  INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

 We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
 33-35863 and 33-42261 on Form S-3 and Registration Statement Nos. 33-4636,
 33-24199, 33-36554, 33-41406, 33-49882, and 33-62097 on Form S-8, of our 
 report dated July 16, 1997, except for the third paragraph of Note 5 as to
 which the date is August 7, 1997, with respect to the consolidated financial
 statements of Immucor, Inc. in this Annual Report (Form 10-K).


 Ernst & Young LLP

 Atlanta, Georgia
 August 21, 1997
EXHIBIT 11.2

                            PAMECO CORPORATION
              COMPUTATION OF HISTORICAL NET INCOME PER SHARE
                 (In thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      Three Months Ended             Nine Months Ended
                                                         November 30,                  November 30,
                                                      ------------------------------------------------
                                                             1997                          1997
                                                             ----                          ----
<S>                                                        <C>                           <C>
Primary:
  Weighted average common stock and common stock
  equivalents outstanding during the period                 8,769                          8,684

Effect of common stock equivalents issued
  subsequent to March 26, 1996, computed in
  accordance with the treasury stock method as
  required by the SEC <F1>                                    330                            330
                                                           ------                         ------
         Total                                              9,099                          9,014
                                                           ======                         ======
Net Income                                                 $1,119                         $8,188
                                                           ======                         ======
Plus:  Reduction in interest expense from
  repayment of long-term notes payable, net of
  income taxes <F2>                                            --                            676
Net Income                                                 $1,199                         $8,864
                                                           ======                         ======
Net income per share                                       $ 0.13                         $ 0.98
                                                           ======                         ======
<FN>
<F1> Pursuant to Securities and Exchange Commission Staff Accounting
     Bulletin No. 83, common stock equivalents issued at prices below the
     Initial Public Offering price per share of $14 ("cheap stock") during
     the twelve month period immediately preceding the initial filing date
     of the Company's Registration Statement for its Initial Public
     Offering have been included as outstanding for all periods presented.

<F2> Historical supplemental net income per share reflects the number of
     shares of common stock issued upon consummation of the Initial Public
     Offering used to repay $44.2 million in current and long-term debt as
     if the issuance had occurred at the beginning of the period (or date
     of issuance of notes payable, if later) and the related reduction in
     interest expense.
</FN>

</TABLE>
From: janellemccoy@ymail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:14:33 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,

Janelle McCoy

Olathe, KS 66062
LNB Bancorp, Inc.Exhibit to Form 10-K(For the twelve months ended December 31, 2004)Exhibit Number (32(b))CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, ASENACTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002     In connection with the Annual Report of LNB Bancorp, Inc. (the“Corporation”) on Form 10-K for the period endingDecember 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Terry M. White, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretaryof the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as enacted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:          (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of    section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of    1934; and           (2) The information contained in the Report fairly    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and    results of operations of the Corporation.     /s/ Terry M. White           Terry M. White *Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary*March 11, 2005
78
Docket Number: FAA-2012-0329
From: tammy.klapwyk@live.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:14:28 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,

T Klapwyk

Hendersonville, TN 37075
From: jsevrence@roadrunner.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:33:27 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,

Jack Sevrence

Monclova, OH 43542
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, Warren S. Hoffman,
Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of the managing general partner, Prudential-Bache Properties, Inc. (the Managing General Partner), of Prudential-Bache/Watson & Taylor, Ltd.-2 (the Partnership), hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Partnerships Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Annual
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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                              
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Warren S. Hoffman                                                                                                         
|Warren S. Hoffman Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of the Managing General Partner of the Partnership April 20, 2007
No. 126.

#### Porter *v.*Stanford, Judge.

*Stephen W. Langmade*for petitioner.

Supreme Court of Arizona. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
EXHIBIT 32.2



           CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                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 Annual Report on Form 10K of First
Keystone Corporation (the "Corporation") for the period ended
December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "Report"), I, Diane C.A. Rosler, PFO, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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 Corporation as of and for the
       period covered by the Report.







Date: March 8, 2007            /s/ Diane C.A. Rosler
                               _________________________
                               Diane C.A. Rosler
                               Principal Financial Officer




                               73