alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: cindyloy@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:26:37 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,

Cindy Loy

Beech Grove, IN 46107
<PAGE>   1




                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.2

                        INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
Tristar Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
33-45396) on Form S-8 of Ross Cosmetics Distribution Centers, Inc. of our
report dated December 6, 1996, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Tristar Corporation and subsidiaries as of August 31, 1996 and 1995, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity, and cash
flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended August 31, 1996, and
the related schedule, which report appears in the August 31, 1996, annual
report on Form 10-K of Tristar Corporation.

Our report refers to a change to the LIFO method of valuing inventory.


San Antonio, Texas
December 11, 1996
From: Gayle@USAChristian.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:20:35 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,

Gayle Koerber

Ivanhoe, MN 56142
No. 627.

#### Aerovias Interamericanas de Panama, S. A., et al. *v.*Board of County Commissioners of Dade County, Florida.

*Philip Schleit, J. Leo McShane*and *William D. Donnelly*for petitioners.

*Chester Bedell*for respondent.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### John W. Harway, Respondent, v. The Long Island Railroad Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Pratt, J.; Barnard, P. J., not sitting.
From: frkaluza@mediacombb.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:20:52 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,

Michael Kaluza

Belle Plaine, MN 56011
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       2,850,293
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               56,256,674
<ALLOWANCES>                               (1,898,960)
<INVENTORY>                                  3,511,168
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            86,260,779
<PP&E>                                     234,189,792
<DEPRECIATION>                            (58,981,809)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,661,064,125
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      109,285,659
<BONDS>                                  1,013,552,199
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      511,642,522
<PREFERRED>                                    314,286
<COMMON>                                           573
<OTHER-SE>                               (256,495,754)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             1,661,064,125
<SALES>                                      6,018,097
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           146,339,620
<CGS>                                       11,858,855
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              158,562,706
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (423,506)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          55,528,311
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (67,327,891)
<INCOME-TAX>                              (25,580,541)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (41,747,350)
<DISCONTINUED>                            (25,778,997)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (67,526,347)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (202.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (202.05)


</TABLE>
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00097

- CV

AZZ Incorporated and AZZ Group,

L.P.

v.

Michael Coleman Morgan; Boyce

Galvanizing, LLC; and Big Spring

Holdings, LLC §

§

§

§ From the 67th District Court

of Tarrant Co unty (067

- 257747

- 12)

April 9, 2015

Opinion by Justice Walker



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that appellant AZZ Incorporated and AZZ Group, L.P.

shall pay all of the costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_ /s/ Sue Walker

____________________ Justice Sue Walker
AVS DF
LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION BE CTLO SG -/0
PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS
BRANCH

Page 1 of 1

SEP 0 2 204

|As of: September 02, 2011
Received; August 28, 2011
Status: Posted

PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: September 02, 2011

Tracking No. 80f068c1
‘(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-2010-0017-0152
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Uhknowa 1¢ .
Submitter Information

Address;
Galveston, 77550-5371
Submitter's Representative: NARAL Pro-Choice America

General Comment

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

T 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?objectId=09000... 9/2/2011
From: Richard Parker [mailto:richardparkerdc@gmail.com] 

Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 1:43 PM 

To: Andrew Delaski; Art Rosenfeld; Bob Smith; Brian Coffey; Caitlin Johnson; Carlos Siqueiros; Caskey, 

John; Chad Kennedy; Chris Bolduc; Chris Brown; Creevy, Jim; Dan Cohen; Daniel Young; Eduardo 

Robles; Edwards, Brenda; Eric Petersen; Freeman, Jeremiah; Gary Fernstrom; Greg Rosenquist; Jennifer 

Tiedeman; Jerry Schoen; Jim Raba; Joanna Mauer; John Cymbalsky; Katie Coughlin; Matthew Nardotti; 

Maxine Savitz; Meg Waltner; Michael Rivest; Millure, Dave; Phil Harter; Polinski, Raymond; Richard W. 

Parker; Rob Greeson; Robert Berman; Robert van Buskirk; Robin Roy; Ryan, Paul; Scott Beck; Steve 

Nadel; Steve Rosenstock; Ted Johnstone; Thomas Patzner; Thomas Petrosino; Tim Ballo; Vijay 

Tendulkar; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo 

Subject: DOE Analysis of Small Business Impacts 

Colleagues, 

Attached please find DOE's latest analysis of small business impacts for the LV space - prepared 

by Rob Carmichael at Navigant. 

Best wishes, 

Richard Parker 

Facilitator
DSMDB-3047225 BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C.

| In the matter of the cancellation of the | Air Taxi authority issued to: | Docket DOT-OST-2012-0022 | VIH COUGAR HELICOPTERS, INC. | _______________________________________|

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF VIH COUGAR’S MOTION TO WITHHOLD INFORMATION FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE VIH Cougar Helicopters, Inc. (“VIH Cougar”), files this Reply in response to the Answer of Petroleum Helicopters, Inc. (“PHI”) to VIH Cougar’s Motions to Withhold Information from Public Disclosure (“Motions”). 1 Nothing in PHI’s Answer refutes VIH Cougar’s showing that its Motions to Withhold from Public Disclosure should be granted.
I. ARGUMENT A. VIH Cougar Correctly Recited the Facts Contrary to PHI’s assertions, VIH Cougar has not misstated the facts. On March 12, 2012, the Department issued Order 2012-3-7, which specifically provided that interim access to documents provided by VIH Cougar would be limited to counsel for interested parties who filed affidavits in advance of reviewing the materials. See Letter of Rosalind A. Knapp to Jonathan Blank at 1 (“Knapp Letter”) (March 29, 2012). Notwithstanding that Order, PHI’s counsel did

1 On April 2, 2012, VIH Cougar filed identical motions to withhold from public disclosure unredacted versions of its Response and Objections to the Department’s March 12, 2012 Order to Show Cause, and VIH Cougar’s Motion to Stay. Both submissions included confidential commercial and personal information exempt from public disclosure pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, the Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1905, and other applicable statutory and regulatory prohibitions. Redacted versions of both documents were also provided to the Department for inclusion onto Docket No. DOT-OST-2012-0022.
From: bwilford@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:36:34 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,

Brad Wilford

Peru, IA 50222
CERTIFICATIONS

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

     I, Robert Malin, certify that:

(1)  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of A.B. Watley Group
Inc.

(2)  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

(3)  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

(4)  The registrant's other certifying officers and I are 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 our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

(b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our 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 period covered by this
quarterly report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

(5)  The registrant's other certifying officers and 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 registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)  All significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or
operation of internal control 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 control over
financial reporting.


       Date: February 9, 2005             /s/ Robert Malin
                                          -----------------------------------
                                          Robert Malin
                                          Title:   Principal Financial Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.7
                                          
                                    AMENDMENT TO

                            THE ODS 401(k) SAVINGS PLAN



WHEREAS, ODS Networks, Inc. (the "Employer") heretofore adopted the ODS 401(k)
Savings Plan (the "Plan"); and

WHEREAS, the Employer reserved the right to amend the Plan; and

WHEREAS, the Employer heretofore amended the Plan and desires to further amend
the Plan;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of November 1, 1997, as
follows:


1.   Section 4.2(a) of the Plan shall be amended by adding the following
     paragraph to the conclusion of said Section:

     Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Section 4.2(a), if a
     Participant's elective deferrals for a Plan Year reach the maximum amount
     set out in Section 4.1(c) and, as a result, the Participant is not eligible
     to make elective deferrals to the Plan for the balance of such Plan Year,
     if such Participant is employed by the Employer on the last day of such
     Plan Year, such Participant shall receive a supplemental matching
     contribution following the close of such Plan Year in an amount equal to
     the percentage (as determined by the Employer's board of directors for such
     Plan Year) of the Participant's Compensation contributed to the Plan as
     elective deferrals for such Plan Year, minus the amount of the Employer
     matching contribution previously made on behalf of such Participant for
     such Plan Year.

2.   Except as hereinabove amended, the provisions of the Plan shall continue in
     full force and effect.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Employer, by its duly authorized officer, has caused
this Amendment to be executed as of the       29th       day of          
October          , 1997.

                    ODS NETWORKS, INC.


                    By: /s/ Kandis Tate Thompson            
                        -----------------------------------
Exhibit 32

                    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 Cybertel Communications Corp.
(the "Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Quarterly Report"), we, Richard D. Mangiarelli, Chief Executive Officer and
Richard Schmidt, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, 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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Registrant.


Date: 11/13/03                           /s/Richard D. Mangiarelli
      --------                           ------------------------
                                         Richard D. Mangiarelli
                                         Chief Executive Officer

Date: 11/13/03                           /s/Richard Schmidt
      --------                           ------------------
                                         Richard Schmidt
                                         Chief Financial Officer