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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:16:30 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,

Enrique Soros

Bethesda, MD 20814
From: glenveagh@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:08:19 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,

John Harney

Tempe, AZ 85285
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.  201				Trade Date: 07/18/02
(To Prospectus Supplement & Prospectus dated

  June 1, 2001)							Issue Date:  07/23/02
The Date of this Pricing Supplement July 22, 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)

14911QJJ1   4.30%	07/15/07	     100%	       1.00%                Quarterly	     YES	    NO	

Principal						1st Payment	Day	

Amount		Proceeds		Dealer		      Date		Count

$3,270,000.00	$3,237,300.00	ABN AMRO Inc.	    10/15/02	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, $653.464 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
consolidated  financial  statements of First Robinson Financial  Corporation for
the quarterly  period ended  September 30, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference  to such  financial  statements.
amounts)
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Mar-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-1999
<CASH>                                         1,224
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         3,226
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                   0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                   15,752
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           175
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             177
<LOANS>                                       63,150
<ALLOWANCE>                                     (631)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                86,907
<DEPOSITS>                                    69,554
<SHORT-TERM>                                   6,058
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              518
<LONG-TERM>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                           9
<OTHER-SE>                                    10,768
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                86,907
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                1,370
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                282
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               1,652
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               710
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               772
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            880
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                     30
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  724
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  276
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       276
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                     177
<EPS-BASIC>                                   0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0.25
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                  4.25
<LOANS-NON>                                      206
<LOANS-PAST>                                       2
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   49
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 656
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    (61)
<RECOVERIES>                                       6
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                631
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             631
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            0



</TABLE>
#### Baker Cart Company, Respondent, *v.*Jamesville Manufacturing Company, Appellant.

*Baker Cart Co.*v. *Jamesville Manfg. Co.,*142 App. Div. 928, affirmed.

(Submitted January 21, 1913;

decided February 4, 1913.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered January 24, 1911, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for an alleged breach of an executory contract."

*Leroy B. Williams*for appellant.

*H. B. Durfee*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Werner, Hiscock, Collin, Cuddeback and Miller, JJ.
From: ddesmith@servantsystems.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:13:58 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,

Donald DeSmith

Chelsea, MI 48118
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Intrusion Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, G. Ward Paxton, Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted 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.

 

 
| March 29,   2011 | /s/ G. Ward Paxton      |   |
|-----------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                  | G. Ward Paxton          |   |
|                  | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cellcom I Corp. on Form 10-KSB for
the year ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jay H. Brown, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1. The Report 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 result of operations of the Company.


Date: March 16, 2007                    By: /s/ Jay H. Brown
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Jay H. Brown
                                            Chief Executive Officer


                                       22
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6921

ERIC A. BRICE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

VIRGINIA BEACH CORRECTIONAL CENTER; FRANK

DREW; JOHN NIEVES, Deputy Sheriff,

Defendants - Appellees,

CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. William T. Prince, Magistrate

Judge. (CA-91-583)

Submitted: October 31, 1997 Decided: January 20, 1998

Before RUSSELL and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric A. Brice, Appellant Pro Se. Abram William VanderMeer, Jr.,

CLARK & STANT, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees.
* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate

judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994).

2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Eric A. Brice appeals the magistrate judge's order* reentering judgment and once again denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 (1994) complaint. In this case, we previously vacated the

magistrate judge's order adverse to Brice and remanded for reconsideration of the possibility that Brice had shown sufficient facts

to survive a motion for summary judgment with regard to his claim

of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. See Brice v.

Virginia Beach Correctional Ctr., 58 F.3d 101 (4th Cir. 1995). We

have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's specific and

careful findings of fact and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Brice v. Virginia Beach Correctional Ctr., No. CA-91-583, (E.D. Va. Dec. 19,

1995). 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
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Cecilia D. Palmer, Appellant. John E. Sweeney, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[632 NYS2d 722]

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 11,1994, which ruled, *inter alia,*that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant’s employment as a hospital accounting clerk was terminated after she gave her employer a forged doctor’s note. After a hearing, the Board disqualified claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the basis that she was terminated for misconduct. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. Claimant’s supervisor requested claimant to provide him with a note from her mother’s doctor before she took time off to take her mother to the doctor. However, instead of obtaining the note from her mother’s doctor, claimant stated that she got the note from a friend who worked at the hospital. She further stated that she knew the note was false, but that her supervisor did not allow her to give an explanation. In view of this testimony, we reject claimant’s assertion that there was no basis upon which the Board could conclude that claimant wilfully submitted a false note. Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Casey and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
|   | 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 Corporation as of and for the period covered by the Report. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ Diane C.A. Rosler                             |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Diane C.A. Rosler                                 |
|   | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   | (Principal Financial Officer)                     |

----
From: jorgek5@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:16:07 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,

Jorge F. Vargas

Star, ID 83669
\ 

SERVED: JUNE 17, 2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

AVIATION TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. 

FAA DOCKET No. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS No. FAA-2011-0682 

ORDER DISMISSING MOTION 

The Initial Decision ("I.D.") in this matter was issued and served on May 17, 2013. It is 

under seal and may be disseminated only on a limited basis. See Order Sealing Exhibits and 

Transcript ("Order") served October 18, 2012. On June 3, 2013, Respondent moved for 

modification of the undersigned's Order to permit Southwest Airlines, which is not a party to this 

proceeding, to obtain a copy of the Initial Decision. Complainant Federal Aviation 

Administration, on June 12, 2013, responded, opposing ATS' motion. 

The undersigned does not have jurisdiction to rule on Respondent's motion. It is wellsettled in the agency that administrative law judges lose jurisdiction over a proceeding once the 

Initial Decision has been issued. See, e.g., Gerald W Keller, FAA Order No. 2011-2 (January 11, 

2011 ), p. 6; Florence Barnhill, FAA Oder No. 1992-32 (May 5, 1992). 
2 

In view of the foregoing, Respondent's Motion is hereby DISMISSED. 

Attachment - Service List 
.. 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

ONE COPY 

Dane B. Jacques, Respondent's Counsel 

Dombroff Gilmore Jacques & French, PC 

1676 International Drive, PH · 

McLean, VA 22102 

TEL: 703-336-8800 

FAX: 703-336-8750 

CELL: 703-966-6111. 

Karen D. Huber, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton, W A 98057 

TEL: 425-227-2167 

FPCX: 425-227-1007 

FDMS No. FAA-2011-0682 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 

2WJOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

3