alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case No. 8,130.

#### In re LAWSON.

[2 N. B. R. 113 (Quarto, 44).] 1

District Court, D. Maryland.

1868.

Bankrüptcí — Attorney fob Creditobb as As-signee.

There is nothing in the act to prevent an attorney for the creditors from being choeen and appointed assignee by them.

[In the matter of James H. Lawson, a bankrupt]

1

 [Reprinted by permission.]

GILES, District Judge.

In this case the register has certified the following question for my decision: “Can an attorney for the creditors be eligible to the office of an as-signee?” There seems to be nothing in the act preventing the attorney for the creditors from being chosen and appointed assignee by the creditors; and when not otherwise objectionable, will be approved.

[It was decided in this case that the bankrupt was not entitled to any exemption in money (Case No. 8,149), and subsequently that upon the allegation of fraudulent preference the creditors were entitled to trial of issue by jury (Case No. 8,151).]
<PAGE> 21

                                                               Exhibit 15.1



                       Report of Independent Accountants



To the Shareholders and Trustees
 of BEC Energy


We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of BEC Energy
(BEC) as of March 31, 1999 and the related statements of income for the
three-month periods ended March 31, 1999 and 1998 and cash flows for the
three-month periods ended March 31, 1999 and 1998.  These financial
statements are the responsibility of management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A review of interim
financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures
to financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial
and accounting matters.  It is substantially less in scope than an audit
conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the
objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial
statements taken as a whole.  Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that
should be made to the accompanying financial statements in order for them to
be in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.




Boston, Massachusetts               PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
April 22, 1999
No. 124, Misc.

#### Bowie *v.*California.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Stanley Mosk,*Attorney General of California, and *Robert R. Granucci, John S. Mclnerny*and *John F. Foran,*Deputy Attorneys General, for respondent.

Supreme Court of California. Certiorari denied.
#### PEERLESS STAGES, INC., *v.*UNITED STATES et al.

No. 262.

Decided October 15, 1962.

*Frederick Bernays Wiener*and *Spurgeon Avakian*for appellant.

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Loevinger, Robert B. Hummel, Robert W. Ginnane*and *Arthur J. Cerra*for the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission.

*Owen Jameson*for Greyhound Corporation, appellee.

Per Curiam.

The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.
Page 1 of 1

a7 Aro :
LEGAL processincpivision PEC /ACSI/- LO SEP 0 2 201
PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS
BRANCH As of: September 02, 2011
Received: August 16, 2011
Status: Posted

PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: September 02, 2011

Tracking No, 80ce25Se
‘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-2010-0017-0161
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Ynkaown ad Submitter Information

Submitter's Representative: NARAL Pro-Choice America

General Comment

I strongly support the new policy requiring health-insurance plans to cover birth control 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 contro!
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
#### Charles L. Petrie, Respondent, *v.*Octavius O. Cottle and another, Appellants.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Hardin, P. J., not voting.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 17

- 00480

- CV

SANTA ROSA INDEPENDE NT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. JESUS F. RODRIGUEZ J R.
On Appeal from the 357th District Court of Cameron County , Texas Trial Cause No. 2017

- DCL

- 01895

- E

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPE ALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and rendered . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and RE NDERS judgment dismissing Rodriguez ’ s claims for lack of jurisdiction

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. December 6, 2018
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1281 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         June 19, 2008.
    Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a two-thirds 
vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the same day it is 
presented to the House is waived with respect to any resolution reported on the 
legislative day of June 19, 2008, providing for consideration or disposition of 
a measure making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2008.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1435 

TP 11-01442 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, GREEN, GORSKI, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF HENRY HUDSON, PETITIONER, 

V ORDER

ANDREA W. EVANS, CHAIRWOMAN, NEW YORK STATE 

DIVISION OF PAROLE, RESPONDENT. 

WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (LEAH RENE NOWOTARSKI

OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER. 

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (ZAINAB A. CHAUDHRY OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial

Department by order of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County [Mark H.

Dadd, A.J.], entered June 23, 2011) to review a determination of

respondent. The determination revoked petitioner’s release to parole

supervision. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said proceeding is unanimously

dismissed without costs as moot (see Darnel v David, 300 AD2d 766,

767).

Entered: December 23, 2011 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
No. 573.

#### Parsons, U. S. District Judge, *v.*Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.

*John J. Naughton*for petitioner.

*Philip W. Tone*for respondent.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted.
|   | (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated. |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: May 16, 2011 | /s/ Neal D. Crispin            |
|--------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|               | Neal D. Crispin                                                                       |
|               | President and Chief Executive Officer                                                 |
|               |                                                                                  |
From: jkottel@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:07:40 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,

Mary J Kottel

Maricopa, AZ 85138
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           7

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           970,773
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                          948,818
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                            948,818
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               1,300,510
<CASH>                                       1,163,944
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             573,754
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,536,141
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              1,350,978
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            766,437
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                  6,400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       503,384
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,268,855
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,536,141
<PREMIUMS>                                     492,171
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             26,204
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                   0
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 439,342
<BENEFITS>                                     408,132
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                    135,867
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           427,620
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (13,902)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (5,423)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (8,479)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (8,479)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.02)
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                1,255,624
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                             302,911
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                66,000
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                               22,000
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                255,000
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                               1,347,659
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                         (66,000)



</TABLE>
Greg lwinski-Eagle Eye Drone Service 

2008 south shore drive 

moline,illinois 61265 

309-269-7871 tigermax1@msn.com 

Wednesday, March 25, 2015 

-----~-- _----:;....:. --~-- --~~- ------ ~----- _....;... ~-

Petition for exemption 14 cfr 11.81 

section 7. UAS certificate of waiver or authorization for commercial use-Aerial video and 

photography. 

Extent of relief-to operate for commercial use. 

Offering !he public consu.mer a.l<?wer cost option for aerial photography and property 

inspectio~ and appraisal. 

I would not be operating a drone over the general public or over private property without 

permission of the property owner. Drones would only be used under 400ft and within visual line 

of sight and would also be using a visual observer to help identify possible hazards in the air as 

well as on the ground and would not be operated within 5 miles of the local airport.drone is 

also equipped with high visibility lights to identify its location.drone would also be flown during 

daylight hours ONLY! 

I have read the current proposed rules and regulations pertaining to commercial drone usage 

and agree ~ith them all in the int~rest of public saf~~y ~n_d i~tend_ ~o_fo~l~w t~e_m as a strict 

policy of safe operation.drones would be inspected and tested for air worthyness prior to each 

flight to insure safe flight to reduce chance of damage to property on the ground_. 

I also have basic aeronauticle knowledge due to the fact that i took helicopter pilots lessons as a 

teenager and have 15 hours flight time. 

i would also like information pertaining to receiving an unmanned air vehicle pilots certificate to 

further insure a level of expertise pertaining to FAA rule 333. ' . -

I have been contacted by TPC Deere run which hosts the PGA golf tour and they would like to 

use my service for this y~ars Deere classic tour but i am not able to do so unless i get the above 

mentio.ne9 _exemption and i will only operate under the current proposed rules of regulation. 

1 
I am hoping you except my exemption so i can continue to operate gainfully and legally ! 

'· . , _.· . .• .~ ... ~ 

... 

•• 

2 

.--~ ._-- .-

Sincerely, 

Greg Iwinski 

., J
# E C 

# / R Incorporated Providing Environmental Technical Support Since 1989

501 Eastowne Drive, Suite 25 0  Chapel Hill, North Carolina 2751 4

Telephone: (919)484

- 0222  Fax: (919) 484

- 0122 MEMORANDUM

Date: August 12, 2010

To: Bruce Moore, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/CCG

Fr om: Robert Vogt , EC/R Incorporated

Heather Brown, EC/R Incorporated

Subject: Documentation of the May 12, 2010 EPA site visit to the ExxonMobil Paluxy oil

well and field gathering and separation site

I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the EPA visit to ExxonMobile’s

Paluxy field site, which consists of approximately 250 active oil wells and a field separation and

gathering system in the East Texas basin.

II. LOCATION & DATE

The Paluxy field site is located near the town of Hawkins, in Wood County, Texas. The

site visit took place on May 12, 2010.

III. ATTENDEES

API

Matt Todd

Cathe Kalisz

BP

Jeffrey A. Adams, Manager, Regulatory Affairs

ExxonMobil

Tom Monahan, Senior Regulatory SpecialistU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA /OAQPS )

Alex MacPherson , Health and Environmental Impacts Division, Air Benefit and Cost Group

Bruce Moore , Sector Policies and Programs Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group

Jodi Howard , Sector Policies and Progr ams Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group

Nick Parsons , Sector Policies and Programs Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group

Rachel Agnew , Sector Policies and Programs Division, Measurement Policy Group

EC/R Incorporated

Heather Brown

Phil Norwood

Rober t Vog t

The site visit report for this facility contains confidential business information (CBI), and

pending approval by the facility, a non

- confidential report has not been issued.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             819
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,833
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (761)
<INVENTORY>                                     34,084
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                58,862
<PP&E>                                          27,617
<DEPRECIATION>                                (11,427)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 110,883
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,252
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        78,391
<OTHER-SE>                                    (14,714)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   110,883
<SALES>                                         22,172
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,172
<CGS>                                           16,814
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,814
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,321
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 672
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (635)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (127)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (674)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (674)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
From: paul.carter@trane.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:40:37 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,

Paul Carter

Clarksville, TN 37043
From: acura_previa@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: acura_previa@yahoo.com

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:18:47 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,

William Bistak

Sheffield Lake, OH 44054