alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: steve.shenton@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:53:31 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,

Stephen Shenton

Shippensburg, PA 17257
Exhibit



    



FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 
AVON PRODUCTS, INC. 2010 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made to the Avon Products, Inc. 2010 Stock Incentive Plan by AVON PRODUCTS, INC., a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York (the “Company”).
INTRODUCTION
The Company maintains the Avon Products, Inc. 2010 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”).  The Company now wishes to amend the Plan to (i) modify the definition of “Committee” and (ii) permit the Committee (as defined in the Plan) to delegate certain of its duties to a subcommittee.  Such amendment would be effective as of March 1, 2016 for awards outstanding under the Plan on or after such date.
AMENDMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, the Company hereby amends the Plan, effective as of March 1, 2016, as follows:
1.  By replacing Section 2(i) in its entirety with the following:
““Committee” means Compensation and Management Development Committee of the Board or such other the committee appointed by the Board to administer the Plan, (i) each member of which must be “independent” under the rules of the New York Stock Exchange, (ii) at least two members of which must satisfy the criteria for being an “outside director” for purposes of Code Section 162(m) and (iii) at least two members of which must satisfy the criteria for being a “non-employee director” for purposes of Rule 16b-3 under the Exchange Act; provided that, with respect to Awards to non-employee directors under an Award Program, “Committee” means the Board or the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of the Board.” 


2.   By adding the following sentence to the end of Section 8(a) thereof:


“The Committee may delegate the approval of certain transactions to subcommittees consisting solely of members of the Committee who are (i) “outside directors” for purposes of Code Section 162(m) or (ii) “non-employee directors” for purposes of Rule 16b-3 under the Exchange Act.”


Except as specifically amended hereby, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect as prior to this First Amendment.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this First Amendment to be executed on the date set forth below.
	
		
	 
	AVON PRODUCTS, INC.

	Dated: March 1, 2016
	By:       
Title:   








1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       5
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000


<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                    SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                               98,648
<SECURITIES>                                         52,752
<RECEIVABLES>                                       317,154
<ALLOWANCES>                                         37,171
<INVENTORY>                                          14,259
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    585,246
<PP&E>                                              700,746
<DEPRECIATION>                                      193,087
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1,824,498
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               534,086
<BONDS>                                           1,529,392
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                         115,000
<COMMON>                                                269
<OTHER-SE>                                         (432,843)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1,824,498
<SALES>                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  1,149,273
<CGS>                                               816,480
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     1,440,137
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      7,380
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  123,832
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (389,606)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          1,773
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (391,379)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (391,379)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (6.89)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (6.89)



</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CHRISTOPHER M. OLSEN AND

CATHY A. OLSEN,

Appellants,

v.

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS (MERS),

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 14

- 00258

- CV

Appeal from

126th District Court

of Travis County, Texas

(TC # D

- 1

- GN

- 13

- 003043)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is a motion filed by Appellee, Mortgage Electronic Registration

Systems (MERS), to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction because the order being appeal is

not a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order. We grant t he motion and dismiss the

appeal.

Appellants filed notice of appeal from an order entered by the trial court on July 21, 2014

granting summary judgment in favor of MERS and MERS filed a motion to dismiss the appeal

for want of jurisdiction . The Third Cou rt of Appeals transferred the appeal to this Court on

September 11, 2014 pursuant to a docket equalization order.

It is well settled that appellate courts have jurisdiction over final judgments, and such

interlocutory orders as the Legislature deems appeal able by statute. Lehmann v. Har

- Con- 2

-

Corporation , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Ruiz v. Ruiz , 946 S.W.2d 123, 124 (Tex.App.

- -

El Paso 1997, no pet.); T EX .C IV .P RAC .&R EM .C ODE A NN . § 51.014 (West Supp. 2014 )

(authorizing appeals from certain interlocutory or ders). The order is not final because LPP

Mortgage’s counterclaim remains pending against Appellants. Further, there is no statutory

provision authorizing an appeal from this interlocutory order. Accordingly, we grant the motion

and dismiss the appeal f

or want of jurisdiction. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.3(a).

September 18, 2014

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, J., and Barajas, C.J., (Senior Judge)

(Barajas, C.J., Senior Ju dge, sitting by assignment, not participating)
<PAGE>   1
 
                                   EXHIBIT 21
 
                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NAME                                       JURISDICTION         BUSINESS           % OF OWNERSHIP
------------------------------------------ -------------------- ------------------ --------------
<S>                                        <C>                  <C>                <C>
TransGlobe Oil and Gas Corporation........ Washington State     Oil and gas             100%
                                                                exploration and
                                                                development
TransGlobe International (Holdings)        Turks & Caicos, BWI  Oil and gas             100%
  Inc.....................................                      exploration and
                                                                development
TG Holdings Yemen Inc..................... Turks & Caicos, BWI  Oil and gas             100%
                                                                exploration and
                                                                development
TransGlobe Power Development               British Columbia                             100%
  Corporation.............................                      Inactive
</TABLE>
From: bparcher@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:50:47 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 Parcher

Berkeley, CA 94704
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-31241

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

S. PATRICK PHILLIPS,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 92-CR-50017-ALL

- - - - - - - - - -

June 21, 1996

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

S. Patrick Phillips, #2106-077, appeals the denial of his

motion to modify his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). 

Phillips argues that Amendment 484 precluded the district court

from basing his sentence on the seized amount of phenylacetic

acid, a precursor chemical to the manufacture of methamphetamine. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
No. 95-31241

-2-

court. See United States v. Phillips, No. 92-CR-50017-ALL (W.D.

La. Nov. 20, 1995).

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from GFSI Inc.
Form 10-Q as of October 2, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-02-1998
<CASH>                                           3,576
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   37,272
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     43,406
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                87,013
<PP&E>                                          38,157
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,157
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 116,233
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,912
<BONDS>                                        194,136
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (106,199)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   116,233
<SALES>                                         60,045
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                60,045
<CGS>                                           34,272
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   49,439
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (35)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,913
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,728
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,428
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,428
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Chauncey G. Starkweather, Respondent and Appellant, v. Charles W. Briggs and others, Appellants and Respondents.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with the costs of this appeal to abide the event, unless the plaintiff stipulates, within twenty days, to deduct, as of the date of the report, §3,101.84 from the amount of the judgment. In that event the judgrae'nt be so modified, and as modified affirmed, without costs. Opinion by Bradley, J.; Smith, P. J., not voting.
***EXHIBIT 31(a)***

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Eric Montandon, certify that:  

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q (“Report”) of WWA Group, Inc.;  

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Report;   

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this Report;   

 

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:  

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this Report is being prepared;   

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this Report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this Report based on such evaluation; and  

 

c) Disclosed in this Report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and  

 

5. I have disclosed based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):   

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and   

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over financial reporting. 

 

Date: May 14, 2008

/s/ Eric Montandon 

Eric Montandon, Chief Executive Officer 

 

34

 

 

----
No. 541, Misc.

#### Lipscomb *v.*United States.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg*and *Kirby W. Patterson*for the United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 366.

#### Corey *v.*United States; and Smith *v.*United States.

No. 387.

*E. F. Bernard*for petitioner in No. 366.

*Kenneth E. Roberts*for petitioner in No. 387. *Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg*and *J. F. Bishop*for the United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350****AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Liberty National Bancshares, Inc.****(the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, William L. Daniel, President andChief Executive Officer of the Company, and Jesse R. Cheatham, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best ofour 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 operationsof the Company.

|        |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |   |
|--------|-----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | By:  | /s/ WILLIAM L. DANIEL                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |   |   |  |
|        |           |   **William L. Daniel****President and Chief Executive Officer****November 12, 2002**        /s/ JESSE R. CHEATHAM     **Jesse R. Cheatham****Chief Financial Officer****November 12, 2002**     |
No. 60974.

protests 204163-K, etc. (New York).

#### Alfin Trading Corp. and W. J. Byrnes & Co. of New York, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of kidskin plates the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Kung Chen Fur Corpn.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 266, C. D. 1480) or *Prime Fur Corp.*v. *United States*(37 Cust. Ct. 83, C. D. 1802) and lambskin plates similar to those the subject of *A. S. Gold & Bro., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 120, C. D. 1643) or C. D. 1802, *supra,*the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Mollison, J.,

dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinions in C. D. 1480 and C. D. 1643, *supra.*