alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FAA TO/20/2010 17:21 FAX 2024335142 

10^18^2010 13; 39__FA^31072588:j AWP-7 '"" ^ S 002/003 

(l002 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : ••ANSPORTATION 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ' OPERATIONS 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS ' 1 OO ? | A % Ob 

WASHINGTON, D.C 

In the Matter of S/P Resources, Inc. * FAA Docket No, CP10WP0005 

• DMS No. FAA-2010-0319 

Respondent. * FAA Region: Western«Pa<;lfic 

Judge: Richard C. Goodwin 

* 

MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT 

To: The Honorable Administrative Law Judge Goodwin and Respondent, forough its 

attorney, herein; 

COMES NOW, the Regional Coiinsel for the Wcstem«Pacific Regioi, Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) through counsel, hereby files this Motion for "^'v'ithdrawal 

of Complaint and seeks dismissal of this action with prejudice. This motion n; based on 

the fact the parties have settled this matter due to Respondent's financial inatiility to pay 

the full proposed civil penalty, and an Order Assessing Civil Penalty rcflijcting said 

settlement and reduced civil penalty will be issued. 

Respectjfiilly submitted, 

NAOMI TSUDA 

Regional Counsel 

By: 

Courtney^dolph 

General Attorney 

Dated: October 18, 2010 
10/20/2010 17:21 FAX 2024935142 FAA . OMS §1003/003 

10/18/2010 13:3fl FAl 3107256S16 AffP-7 121003 

CERTTFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this date I have sent by facsimile, placed in the U.,.>. mail, 

postage prepaid, certified mail, and via facsimile, the executed original and fa:,ad ope 

copy of the Motion to Withdrawal Complaint, addressed as follows: 

Hearing Docket 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building— Suite 2014 

Facsimile: (202) 493-5020 

and a copy to: 

The Honorable Richard C, Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transpoitation 

Office of Hearint's, M-20, Room El2-320 

1200 New Jersey, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor 

Washington, D.C, 20590 

Facsimile: (202) 366-7536 

I further certiiy that on this date I have sent by facsimile and placed in the U.S. 

mail, postage prepaid, certified mail, a true copy of the Motion to Withdrawal CcTiplaint, 

addressed as follows: 

S/P Resources, Inc. 

c/o Christopher Nissen, Esq. 

Manning & Marder, Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, LLP 

15* Floor at 801 Tower 

801 South Figueroa Street 

Los Angeles, CA 90017-.'?012 

Facsimile: (213) 624-6999 

Dated: October JJ_ , 2010 

Antonia Garcia 

Paralegal, Office of the Regional Coimsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Lawndalc, CA 90261
From: wmbc.info@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:39:20 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,

Eric Ickes

Williamsburg, VA 23188
From: dsdec1003@juno.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:50:30 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,

Debbie Decker

Fountain, CO 80817
<PAGE>   1



                                                                   EXHIBIT 12(b)



                             D&N CAPITAL CORPORATION
                Computation of ratio on earnings to fixed charges
                   and preferred stock dividend requirements

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                          For the Quarter
                                                          March 31, 1998
                                                    (In thousands, except ratio):
                                                    -----------------------------
<S>                                                            <C>                      
Net income                                                     $1,003                   
                                                             
                                                             
Fixed charges:                                               
    Advisory fees                                                  31
                                                             
Total fixed charges                                                31
                                                             
Earnings before fixed charges                                   1,034
                                                             
Fixed charges, as above                                            31
                                                             
Preferred stock dividend requirements                             681
                                                             
Fixed charges including preferred                            
    stock dividends                                               712
                                                             
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges and                       
    preferred stock dividend requirements                        1.45
                                               
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2



inTEST CORPORATION



In connection with the Quarterly Report of inTEST Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Hugh T. Regan, Jr., Secretary, Treasurer and 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; and
(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
Date:	May 13, 2011

/s/ Hugh T. Regan, Jr.
Hugh T. Regan, Jr.
Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
No. 130.

#### Mathiasen Tanker Industries, Inc., *v.*Mason.

*Harry E. McCoy*for petitioner.

*Sidney H. Kelsey*for respondent.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Black is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted in this case because the petitioning shipowner here has been denied its right to trial by jury guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution.
From: dirtundermanails@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:23:14 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,

Victoria Clevinger

Apple Valley, CA 92307
From: iunger@lawleyinsurance.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:27:10 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,

Irma Unger

Niagara Falls, NY 14304
From: KSinn@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:19:18 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,

Max Sinn

Nampa, ID 83686
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1147 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1147

    To amend title X and title XI of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 29, 2001

  Mr. Nickles introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title X and title XI of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF THORIUM REIMBURSEMENT.

    (a) Section 1001(b)(2)(C) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 
U.S.C. 2296a) is amended by striking ``$140,000,000'' and inserting 
``$263,000,000''.
    (b) Section 1003(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2296a-2) is amended by 
striking ``$490,000,000'' and inserting ``$613,000,000''.
    (c) Section 1802(a) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
2297g-1) is amended by striking ``$488,333,333'' and inserting 
``$508,833,333''.
                                 <all>
```
CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

POWERNOTES (SM)

With Maturities of 9 months or more from Date of Issue

 

Registration No.  333-59540

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (3)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO.  214				Trade Date: 08/29/02
(To Prospectus Supplement & Prospectus dated

  June 1, 2001)							Issue Date:  09/04/02
The Date of this Pricing Supplement August 29, 2002
SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION OR REPAYMENT

  CUSIP									Date and terms of redemption or

     or	Stated				             Interest			repayment (including any

Common	Interest		  Price to	 Discounts &         Payment	Survivors		applicable regular or special

  Code	Rate (1)	Maturity	Public (2)	Commissions       Frequency	  Option	Yes/No	record dates)

14911QJX0    2.55%	09/15/04	     100%	       .625%                Semi-Annually	     YES	    NO	

Principal						1st Payment	Day	

Amount		Proceeds		Dealer		      Date		Count

$3,252,000.00	$3,231,675.00	ABN AMRO Inc.	   03/15/03		30/360	
 

Original Issue Discount Note:					Total Amount of OID:

____  Yes	  X   No						N/A

 

 
- The interest rates on the PowerNotes (SM) may be changed by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation from time to time, but any such change will not affect the interest rate on any PowerNotes (SM) offered prior to the effective date of the change.   Prior to the date of this Pricing Supplement, $691.879 mm principal amount of the PowerNotes (SM) were sold at interest rates then in effect.  Subsequent offerings of PowerNotes (SM) will be made under a Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated June 1, 2001.
Additionally, the total principal amount of PowerNotes(SM) offered by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation pursuant to its Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated June 1, 2001 has been increased from $500.0mm to $750.0mm.  $250.0mm principal amount of debt securities registered pursuant to Registration Statement No. 333-59540 originally offered by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation pursuant to its Prospectus Supplement dated June 15, 2001 and related Prospectus dated May 25, 2001 are being offered as PowerNotes(SM) by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation pursuant to its Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated June 1, 2001.
- Expressed as a percentage of aggregate principal amount.  Actual Price to Public may be less, and will be determined by prevailing market prices at the time of purchase as set forth in the confirmation sheet.
No. 523.

#### Morgan et al. *v.*Udall, Secretary of the Interior, et al.

*Marvin J. Sonosky*and *J. Reuel Armstrong*for petitioners.

*Solicitor General Cox, Roger P. Marquis*and *A. Donald Mileur*for Udall, and *Harry M. Edelstein*for Wallis, respondents.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Certiorari denied.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CAMDEN RASHAD WILLIAMS

,

Appellant

,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

Appellee

. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 23

- 00322

- CR

Appeal from the

290th Judicial D istrict Court

o f Bexar County, Texas

(TC# 2021

- CR

- 1 0676 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on Appellant’s voluntary motion to dismiss the appeal

. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a) (governing voluntary dismissal of appeals in criminal cases). Appellant

represents in the motion that he no longer wishes to pursue this appeal. The motion is signed by

Appellant and his counsel. We have not issued an opinion in this case. Accordingly, we grant the

motion to dismiss, and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a)

.

G INA M. PALAFOX

, Justice

December 2 9 , 2023

Before Alley , C.J., Palafox, and Soto

, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 2, 2016

s0418

Order 

Clerk

May 2, 2016

151545

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 151545

COA: 324411

Saginaw CC: 09-032607-FC

DYTERIUS MICHAEL ROBY, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 12, 2015 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
From: Joann

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Reject exemptions for religious employers

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:19:27 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept the

recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of preventive care under the new

health care law, and to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive services are a

critical element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to necessary health

care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access to contraceptive

services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive services, are pushing the

government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to

apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be exempt from the

coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger

exemption would deny access to thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.

 Thank you for your time!

Sincerely,

Joann Aurand