alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: WARREN DORMAN

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 1:02:35 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

WARREN DORMAN
Tinley Park, Illinois
From: loisjmartinez@embarqmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:54:45 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,

Lois Martinez

Greenwood, SC 29649
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1411 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1411

 Expressing support for designation of January 28, 2009, as ``National 
                          Data Privacy Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 1, 2008

 Mr. Price of North Carolina submitted the following resolution; which 
          was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing support for designation of January 28, 2009, as ``National 
                          Data Privacy Day''.

Whereas the Internet and the capabilities of modern technology cause data 
        privacy issues to figure prominently in the lives of many people in the 
        United States at work, in their interaction with government and public 
        authorities, in the health field, in e-commerce transactions, and online 
        generally;
Whereas many individuals are unaware of data protection and privacy laws 
        generally and of specific steps that can be taken to help protect the 
        privacy of personal information online;
Whereas ``National Data Privacy Day'' constitutes an international collaboration 
        and a nationwide and statewide effort to raise awareness about data 
        privacy and the protection of personal information on the Internet;
Whereas government officials from the United States and Europe, privacy 
        professionals, academics, legal scholars, representatives of 
        international businesses, and others with an interest in data privacy 
        issues are working together on this date to further the discussion about 
        data privacy and protection;
Whereas privacy professionals and educators are being encouraged to take the 
        time to discuss data privacy and protection issues with teens in high 
        schools across the country;
Whereas the recognition of ``National Data Privacy Day'' will encourage more 
        people nationwide to be aware of data privacy concerns and to take steps 
        to protect their personal information online; and
Whereas January 28, 2009, would be an appropriate day to designate as ``National 
        Data Privacy Day'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the designation of a ``National Data Privacy 
        Day'';
            (2) encourages State and local governments to observe the 
        day with appropriate activities that promote awareness of data 
        privacy;
            (3) encourages privacy professionals and educators to 
        discuss data privacy and protection issues with teens in high 
        schools across the United States; and
            (4) encourages individuals across the Nation to be aware of 
        data privacy concerns and to take steps to protect their 
        personal information online.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 23.1


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-2 (No. 333-44789), the Registration Statement on Form S-2 (No. 333-68811)
and the Registration Statements on Form S-8 which were previously filed by SGI
International (the "Company") of our report on the consolidated financial
statements of the Company and its subsidiaries, dated February 16, 1999, which
report appears elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 1998.



/s/ J. H. COHN LLP

San Diego, California
March 16, 1999
From: lorizio@post.harvard.edu

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:11:02 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,

Anthony Lorizio

Watertown, MA 02472
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-10486

Summary Calendar

 

TERRY DON RADER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GARRY WEBER; GLENN NOWLIN; SUSAN SLOVAK;

WEBER INVESTMENT CORPORATION,

Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:02-CV-23-P

--------------------

December 27, 2002

Before JOLLY, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Terry Don Rader appeals the district court’s dismissal for

lack of subject-matter jurisdiction of his claims against the

defendants arising under the securities laws. He asserts that

the defendants made false statements that caused him loss, in

violation of 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5. Rader

has not established that he was induced into buying or selling

securities based upon the allegedly false statements made by the

defendants or that any transaction entered by Rader resulted in
No. 02-10486

-2-

loss. See Santa Fe Indus. v. Green, 430 U.S. 462, 476 (1977);

Reid v. Hughes, 578 F.2d 634, 636 (5th Cir. 1978). As a result,

the district court lacked authority to adjudicate the case. See

Home Builders Ass’n of Miss. v. City of Madison, Miss., 143 F.3d

1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998); Carpenter v. Wichita Falls Indep.

Sch. Dist., 44 F.3d 362, 366 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Texas

New Mexico

Fort Bliss

Military Reservation

Fort Bliss

(McGregor Range)

Fort Bliss

Military Reservation

Organ

Mountains

Franklin

Mountains

0 5 10 miles

NORTH

El Paso

Ciudad

Juarez

Las

Cruces

R oi Grande

~

DSC/APRIL 2004/661/2012A 1 OF 7

New Mexico

Mexico

Texas

Santa Fe

Albuquerque

El Paso Ciudad

Juarez

El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro

National Historic Trail

Auto Tour Route

High-Potential Historic Site

Section 1 of 7

United States Department of the Interior

National Park Service

Bureau of Land Management

Auto Tour Route

High-Potential Historic Sites

El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro

National Historic Trail

Mission Trail/

San Elizario

Mission Trail/

Socorro

Onate

Boundary Crossing

Marker #1

Keystone

Park

Bracito

Fort

Fillmore

Mission Trail/

Ysleta del

Sur Pueblo

85

258

357

20

478

478

Map 3A

Mexico

New Mexico
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAn introduction to requirements capture using PVS: Specification of a simple autopilotThis paper presents an introduction to capturing software requirements in the PVS formal language. The object of study is a simplified digital autopilot that was motivated in part by the mode control panel of NASA Langley's Boeing 737 research aircraft. The paper first presents the requirements for this autopilot in English and then steps the reader through a translation of these requirements into formal mathematics. Along the way deficiencies in the English specification are noted and repaired. Once completed, the formal PVS requirement is analyzed using the PVS theorem prover and shown to maintain an invariant over its state space.Document ID19960042551Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsButler, Ricky W.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMay 1, 1996Subject CategoryComputer Programming And SoftwareReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-110255NAS 1.15:110255Accession Number96N31527Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-64-10-13Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19960042551.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
No. 150.

#### Silver, doing business as Municipal Securities Co., et al. *v.*New York Stock Exchange.

*Solicitor General Cox*on the motion.

Certiorari, *ante,*p. 808, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The motion of the Solicitor General, on behalf of the United States, for leave to participate in oral argument, as *amicus curiae,*is granted and thirty minutes are allotted for that purpose. Counsel for the petitioners and the respondent are also allotted an additional fifteen minutes to argue in this case.
From: c_adams1@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:29:08 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,

Chuck Adams

Jenks, OK 74037
exhibit107.htm










KODAK









July 15, 2014







Re:  Amendment to Employment Agreement







Dear John:







This letter is to confirm that your first date of employment with Eastman Kodak Company was June 16, 2014.  The clarification of the date is necessary, in order to amend your employment agreement, which identified May 27, 2014 as your first date of employment.  All other terms of your employment agreement dated May 16, 2014 remain in full force and effect.







Please indicate your acceptance of the amendment to your employment agreement by signing the acknowledgement below and returning this letter to me.







Thank you.


 


EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY


 


By:  /s/ Jeffrey J. Clarke


Name  Jeffrey J. Clarke


Title  Chief Executive Officer


 


EXECUTIVE


 


/s/ John N. McMullen


John N. McMullen







 







 











  





1
From: robert@justiceandliberty.us

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:59:56 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I strongly oppose the government using my tax dollars to violate my conscience and pay for drugs that

will be given out in support of murdering innocent babies--especially Black babies.

Our government exists to protect our rights, especially our religious rights--not to impose godless views

upon its citizsens. There need to be exceptions for conscience on the part of individuals, employees,

and businesses.

You are making war on people of faith, and I object very strongly. No human being should be forced

by their government to subsidize services they morally or conscientously object to. By doing so, your

department has become complicit in the government's assautls on the rights of the people. We object,

and we will resist. Please reconsider your course of action.

Sincerely,

Robert Broadus

Clinton, MD 20735
**Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATIONI, Larry J. Matheson, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Acorn Holding Corp.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this annual report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this annual report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and15d-14) for the registrant and have:a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report isbeing prepared;b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as ofa date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the “EvaluationDate”); andc. presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date; 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a. all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which couldadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses ininternal controls; andb. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and 6. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have indicated in this annual reportwhether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors thatcould significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recentevaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses.Date:December 14, 2005              /s/ Larry J. Matheson   Person performing the functions   of Chief Financial Officer