alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Elementary Secondary EducationInclusive SchoolsLearning DisabilitiesLearning StrategiesResearch and DevelopmentStudy SkillsTeaching MethodsTheory Practice Relationship

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
| Executive Officer          | Target number of shares |
|----------------------------|-------------------------|
|  Joseph J. MarcAurele | 11,829                  |
|  David V. Devault     | 4,690                   |
|  Stephen M. Bessette  | 3,460                   |
|  James M. Vesey       | 3,774                   |
|  Galan G. Daukas      | 6,152                   |
|  Mark K.W. Gim        | 3,423                   |
|  Barbara J. Perino    | 3,423                   |
From: pkmark89@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:06:03 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 Kaiser

Waterloo, IL 62298
From: hitchin@ramcogen.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:20:39 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,

Rita L Hitchin

Del Mar, CA 92014
#### A. C. Thompson, plaintiff, v. John H. Todd et al., Apellants: M. E. Michelson, appellee.

Filed July 15, 1921.

No. 21663.

Homestead: Fokecj-osuke Sale: Estoppel. One T. was the owner of six lots covered by a mortgage, two of which lots were occupied *546as the family homestead. The property was sold separately under foreclosure proceedings in which a judgment creditor was found to have a second lien. T. took a nine month’s stay of the order of sale under the statute. *Held,*this did not estop him from claiming, after confirmation, the surplus proceeds arising from the sale of the homestead property.

Appeal from the district court for Wheeler county: Bayard H. Paine, Judge.

Reversed, *with directions.*

*Albert*cC- *'Wagner*and *J. .HI. Bhreve,*for appellants.

*A. L. Bishop, contra. °*

Heard before Button, Day and Dean. JJ., Good and Rarer, District Judges.

Letton, J.

This was a suit to foreclose a mortgage on six lots belonging to John II. and Mary E. Todd, two of which constituted their family homestead. M. E. Michelson was the owner of a judgment against the Todds. The two lots constituting the homestead were sold separately from the other four, the homestead bringing $700 and the other lots $600. After-the satisfaction of the mortgage debt there remained about $568 surplus. Defendants filed a petition to have this surplus paid to them by virtue of their homestead right in the two lots. Cross-petitioner Michelson objected, claiming the same by virtue of the lien of her judgment, and also pleading that xlefendants Todd are estopped from asserting the homestead right at this time, having filed a request for a stay of the order of sale, which ivas granted.

The court found that, on account of a stay havingHieen requested, the Todds were estopped to claim the surplus. A case very similar in its facts is *Hooper v. Castetter,*45 Neb. 67. In that case the court held that the question of the homestead right of the mortgagor was not involved nor litigated in the foreclosure suit; that the decree rendered therein ivas not a bar to the mortgagor’s application to have the surplus paid to him in lieu of his *547homestead; that, though the judgments were liens upon the real estate, they were subject to the mortgagor’s homestead 1‘ights in the property; that the decree in the foreclosure suit finding the judgments were liens and ordering them paid out of the surplus should be construed to mean that they were liens and should be paid out of the surplus, subject to the mortgagor’s homestead rights; that the judgment creditors did not acquire by the decree any greater liens upon or right to the money than they had against the property, and that the surplus might be claimed as exempt at any time before it was finally distributed by the order of the court.

We are satisfied with the reasoning in that case. It is decisive of the question presented. The judgment of the district court is reversed and the cause remanded, with instructions to award to defendants Todd the surplus arising from the sale of their homestead.

Reversed.
To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:42:30 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 <a

href="http://lwken.com/click/?s=63452&c=149579" style="color:#006600;font-weight:bold;textdecoration:underline;background:none;padding:0;margin:0;">health insurance</a> 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

<a href="http://lwken.com/click/?s=63452&c=149579" style="color:#006600;font-weight:bold;textdecoration:underline;background:none;padding:0;margin:0;">health insurance</a>.

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,

D. Simons
From: shardawna@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:51:08 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. This is exactly what will happen

since the cost of these services you are forcing American insurance providers to cover for free will be

passed on to all individuals covered in the plan in the form of higher premiums, deductibles, and copays. 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,

Sharlette Anderson

Fulton, MO 65251
Exhibit 32.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
                         ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of John Hancock Financial
Services, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:

         (1) the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2004, (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) 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 as of and for the periods presented in the Report.


Dated: March 16, 2005                              /s/ MARC COSTANTINI
                                                   -------------------
                                            Name:  Marc Costantini
                                            Title: Senior Vice President and
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Adventure EducationCitizenship ResponsibilityEducational StrategiesElementary Secondary EducationEnvironmental EducationExperiential LearningOutdoor EducationParticipatory ResearchRelevance (Education)School Community RelationshipService LearningSocial ResponsibilityStudent Development

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM INNOVATIVE VALVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES FORM 10-Q FOR THE
QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               32,552,289
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,615,332
<INVENTORY>                                 27,377,358
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            65,300,383
<PP&E>                                      39,380,036
<DEPRECIATION>                              21,096,259
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             182,242,949
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       97,927,211
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,665
<OTHER-SE>                                  70,613,875
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               182,242,949
<SALES>                                     87,103,006
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            87,103,006
<CGS>                                       60,902,043
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               60,902,043
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           6,197,396
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (5,807,692)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (546,488)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (5,261,204)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (5,261,204)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.54)


</TABLE>
From: jdmurphy549@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:33:23 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 Murphy

Malvern, PA 19355
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Signature Eyewear, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2006, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Michael Prince, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

     (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.


/s/ Michael Prince
--------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
March 13, 2006
No. 298, Misc.

#### Walker *v.*New Jersey.

Supreme Court of New Jersey. Certiorari denied.
From: medlockterry@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:52:43 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,

Terry Medlock

Olympia, WA 98513