alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: theresanicole28@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:30:06 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,

Theresa Castellanos

Hawaiian Gardens, CA 90716
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 the 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 Court 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 appealable 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.); TEX.CIV.PRAC.&REM.CODE ANN. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2014)

(authorizing appeals from certain interlocutory orders). 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 for want of jurisdiction. See TEX.R.APP.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 Judge, sitting by assignment, not participating)
No. 65970.

#### Shell Oil Company *v.*United States,

protests 60/2405 and 60/19766 (Tampa).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cutback asphalt the same in all material respects as that the subject of *American Bitumuls & Asphalt Co.*v. *United States*(45 Cust. Ct. 1, C.D. 2188), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1636
GRAYSON & KUBLI, P.C., Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEFFREY P. GOLDSTEIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, Magistrate Judge. (1:04-cv-01337-LO) Submitted: April 20, 2007 Decided: June 11, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rand L. Gelber, Vienna, Virginia, for Appellant. Mary E. Harkins, GRAYSON & KUBLI, P.C., McLean, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Appellant Jeffrey P. Goldstein appeals the district court’s judgment that he owed legal fees under a finding of breach of contract, or, in the alternative, quantum meruit. After a bench trial, this court reviews the district court's conclusions of law de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. Minyard Enter., Inc. v. Southeastern Chem. & Solvent Co. , 184 F.3d 373, 380 (4th Cir. 1999); Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a). A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when, “although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. United States Gypsum Co. , 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948); In re Green , 934 F.2d 568, 570 (4th Cir. 1991). We have reviewed the parties' briefs and the joint appendix and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. SeeGrayson & Kubli v. Goldstein , No. 1:04-cv-01337-LO (E.D. Va. Apr. 20, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Emerson Hills Realty, Inc., Appellant, v Robert Mirabella et al., Defendants, and Victory Van Lines, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[633 NYS2d 196]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to declare null and void a transfer of certain real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Amann, J.), dated October 14, 1994, which granted the separate motions of the defendants Victory Van Lines, Inc., and Peter Kyvellos for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The respondents Victory Van Lines, Inc., and Peter Kyvellos each established that they were bona fide purchasers in that they purchased their subject parcels for valuable consideration and they did not have knowledge of the alleged prior fraud by the seller *(see,*Real Property Law § 266; *Berger v Polizzotto,*148 AD2d 651, 651-652; *Nethaway v Bosch,*199 AD2d 654). Accordingly, since the plaintiff failed to submit sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact concerning whether the respondents knew or should have known about the seller’s alleged prior fraud, the Supreme Court properly granted the respondents’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against them. Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.
From: four_palmas@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:37:50 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,

Patricia Ramirez

San Marcos, CA 92069
From: jmlohre@wwdb.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:40:22 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,

Jeff Lohre

Murrieta, CA 92563
# Court of Appeals

**First District of Texas**

BILL OF COSTS

No. 01

- 14

- 00391

- CV

April Doranna Cross

v

.

The State of Texas

NO. 73573 IN THE 412TH JUDICIAL DISTR ICT COURT OF BRAZORIA C OUNTY

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY

CLK RECORD
RPT RECOR D
STATEWIDE EFILING
FILING $82.00 $327.00 $20.00 $175.00 10/30/2014
08/18/2014
06/30/2014
06/30/2014 PAID
PAID
PAID
PAID ANT
ANT
ANT
ANT 

### The costs incurred on appeal to the First Court of Appeals Houston, Texas are $604.00.

Court costs in this case have been taxed in this Court’s judgment

I, Christopher A. Prine , Clerk o f the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, do hereby certify that this is a true statement of the costs of appeal in this case.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and th e seal of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, this April 3 , 2015

.
To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:44:13 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 Seipp

Wexford, PA 15090
Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper with 100% post

- consumer fiber and process chlorine free.

Customer Service Hotline: 1

- 800

- 438

- 2474 The Honorable E. Christopher Abruzzo, Secretary September 23, 2014

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

Rachel Carson Building

P.O. Box 2063

Harrisburg, PA 17105

Dear Secretary Abruzzo:

On April 30, 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision

to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Protection (PADEP). This SIP revision consists of a redesignation r equest and

maintenance plan for the Lancaster, PA 1997 annual fine particulate matter ( PM 2.5 )

Nonattainment Area and the Lancaster, PA 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area. EPA has

determined that the submittal is administratively and technically complet e, and is reviewing it to

prepare a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR).

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to Leslie Jones

Doherty, Office of Air Program Planning, at (215) 814

- 3409. She is the principal contact for this

rulemaking.

Sincerely,

/s/

Diana Esher, Director

Air Protection Division

cc: Joyce Epps, Director, PADEP Bureau of Air Quality
|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Coupon | Interest | Maturity | Callable | Survivor's Option | Price | CUSIP |   |
| 1.500% | Semi-Annual(†††) | 9/15/2019 | 3/15/2018 * | Yes § | 100.00 | 14912HSY7 |   |

|                         |
|-------------------------|
|                         |  |  |
| (†††) | First Payment date 9/15/2017 |   |
|                    |   |
#### David F. Winne, Respondent, *v.*Lorenzo B. Chapman, Appellant.

(Submitted February 10, 1913;

decided February 14, 1913.)

Motion for re-argument denied, with ten dollars costs, (See 207 N. Y. 666.)
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsTool for the Integrated Dynamic Numerical Propulsion System Simulation (NPSS)/Turbine Engine Closed-Loop Transient Analysis (TTECTrA) User's GuideThe Tool for Turbine Engine Closed-Loop Transient Analysis (TTECTrA ver2) is a control design tool thatenables preliminary estimation of transient performance for models without requiring a full nonlinear controller to bedesigned. The program is compatible with subsonic engine models implemented in the MATLAB/Simulink (TheMathworks, Inc.) environment and Numerical Propulsion System Simulation (NPSS) framework. At a specified flightcondition, TTECTrA will design a closed-loop controller meeting user-defined requirements in a semi or fully automatedfashion. Multiple specifications may be provided, in which case TTECTrA will design one controller for each, producing acollection of controllers in a single run. Each resulting controller contains a setpoint map, a schedule of setpointcontroller gains, and limiters; all contributing to transient characteristics. The goal of the program is to providesteady-state engine designers with more immediate feedback on the transient engine performance earlier in the design cycle.Document ID20160000981Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsChin, Jeffrey C.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Csank, Jeffrey T.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredJanuary 20, 2016Publication DateJanuary 1, 2016Subject CategoryComputer Programming And SoftwareAircraft Propulsion And PowerReport/Patent NumberE-19179GRC-E-DAA-TN26512NASA/TM-2016-218923Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 081876.02.03.30.02Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.KeywordsTransientengine performanceClosed-loopAvailable DownloadsNameType20160000981.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
From: kelleykrew@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:50:05 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,

Diana Kelley

Belvidere, NJ 07823
Amendment to the Piedmont Natural Gas Company Employee Stock Purchase Plan



 EXHIBIT 10.21 

AMENDMENT 
 TO THE 
 PIEDMONT
NATURAL GAS COMPANY 
 EMPLOYEE STOCK
PURCHASE PLAN 
 THIS FIRST AMENDMENT dated this 18th day of September, 2012, to the Piedmont
Natural Gas Company Employee Stock Purchase Plan (as amended and restated effective April 1, 2009) (the “Plan”) adopted by Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc. (the “Company”). 

WHEREAS, the Company has adopted and maintains the Plan as a qualified “employee stock purchase plan” within the meaning of
Section 423 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, for the benefit of certain eligible employees as defined in the Plan; 
 WHEREAS, the Plan authorizes the amendment of the terms of the Plan by the Company; and 
 WHEREAS, the eligibility provisions of the Plan need to be amended and a certain clean up amendment is required. 
 NOW THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
 1.
        Effective as of January 1, 2012, the first full sentence of Section 2.01 of the Plan is amended in its entirety to read as follows: 

“Each Employee shall be eligible to participate in the Plan on the first day following the date on which the
Employee completes thirty (30) days of continuous employment with the Corporations.” 
 2.
        title reference for Article IV is incorrectly labeled “Article VI”. The Plan is hereby amended to correct the reference to “Article IV”. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this amendment to be executed the day and year written above. 

PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS COMPANY, INC. 

By: /s/ Kevin M. O’Hara 

Its: SVP – Chief Administrative Officer