alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: christian231@windstream.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:53:21 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,

Darlene Van Norman

Wind Ridge, PA 15380
[Civ. No. 1252.

Third Appellate District.

April 4, 1914.]

#### SPRING VALLEY WATER COMPANY (a Corporation), Respondent, v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, Appellant.

Taxation—Assessment of Hiparían Eights.—Judgment affirmed on the authority of *Spring Valley Water Company*v. *County of Alameda, ante,*p. 278.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County. W. H. Waste, Everett J. Brown, and Wm. S. Wells, Judges.

The facts are similar to those stated in the opinion in *Spring Valley Water Company*v. *County of Alameda, ante,*p. 278.

W. IT. L. Hynes, and Walter J. Burpee, for Appellant.

McCutchen, Olney & Willard, for Respondent.

THE COURT.

This appeal involves the same question as that decided in *Spring Valley Water Company*v. *County of Alameda,*(Civ. No. 1251), *ante,*p. 278, [141 Pac. 38] of the same title, and, upon authority of that decision,'this day filed, the judgment is affirmed.
From: ke4bpw@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:52:46 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 Ellingboe

, 35976-1048
AMENDMENT No. 2 TO THE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT CONTRACT

     THIS AMENDMENT TO THE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT CONTRACT is made as of June 7,
2007, by and between DELAFIELD FUND, INC., a Maryland corporation (the "Fund")
and REICH & TANG ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, (the "Manager").

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

     WHEREAS, the Fund and the Manager are parties to an Investment Management
Contract dated as of October 30, 2000, as amended on April 24, 2003 (the
"Management Contract"), pursuant to which the Manager serves as the investment
manager for the Fund; and

     WHEREAS, the Fund and the Manager desire to amend the Management Contract
to reflect a modification of the fee payable by the Fund to the Manager under
such contract.

     NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree as follows:

     1. The first sentence of Paragraph 5 of the Management Contract is hereby
amended to read as follows:

     In consideration of the foregoing we will pay you a fee at the annual rate
of 0.80% on the first $250 million of net assets of the Fund; 0.75% on the next
$250 million of net assets of the Fund; 0.70% on the next $500 million of net
assets of the Fund; and 0.65% on all net assets of the Fund over $1 billion.

     2. The Management Contract, as expressly amended hereby, shall continue in
full force and effect.


<PAGE>


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AMENDMENT No. 2
TO THE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT CONTRACT as of the day and year first above
written.

          DELAFIELD FUND, INC.


          By: /s/ Steven W. Duff
          Name:   Steven W. Duff
          Title:  Principal Executive Officer

          REICH & TANG ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC

          By: /s/ Richard De Sanctis
          Name:   Richard De Sanctis
          Title:  Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
From: margrschill@sbcglobal.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:34:39 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,

Margaret Schillig

Burlingame, CA 94010
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****An analysis of the President�sbudgetary proposals for fiscal year...**
 
1979 | 1980| 1983 | 1984| 1985 | 1986| 1987 | 1988 | 1989
1991 | 1992| 1993 | 1995| 1996 | 1998| 1999
 
SuDoc Number:Y 10.2:B 85/8/ | Y 10.19:
Item Number:1005-K
CGP systemNumber:000325357
 
October 8, 2019
No. 484, Misc.

#### Williams *v.*Wilkins, Warden.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
July 26, 2013

Ms. Brooke Chapman. Associate Director Small Community Air Service Development Program U.S. Department ofTransportation 8'hFloor, Room W86-307 1200New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington D.C. 20590 Subject: Alaska Airlines' Letter of Support Small Community Air Service Development Program Grant Application Docket DOT-OST-20 13-0120 Yakima Air Terminal- McAllister Field Dear Ms Chapman: .' , f ~~' '. ,_ . 

# ~3L:~~_:~ I"', 1'-;~,,:r

i"1 

# ~~j; ~,--: ;::;.~ ~., CI:)

Alaska Airlines is pleased to lend their support forthe above referenced application, and assure the DOT that our group will continue to partner with Yakima and actively participate inthe Strategic Plan described intheir submittal. Alaska Air Group, including Horizon, has served Yakima from Seattle for more than 25 years and has worked with their key community representatives onnumerous occasions to strengthen the Seattle service forboth the catchment area as well as our airline. This service is important to Alaska as Yakima is akey spoke to the Seattle.hub. It is important tothe Yakima area as itprovides abridge to the National Transportation System without contributing to the congested traffic on Route 90 over Snoqualmie pass that takes 2\/, hours on a good day. Beginning in 2008 we began arefleeting program to replace the 37 seat DHC-8 Q200 aircraft with more economical 76 seat Q400 models. The impact onYakima was areduction in average daily departures from 6 to 3, maintaining about the same capacity inthe market but half the frequencies. Because ofthe lack offrequent departure options, the market load factors have notbeen good. Therefore itis very important forboth Alaska and Yakima to implement a strategic plan that will increase loads on existing flights, add further options to the schedule, andassure long term health of our service to the Yakima markets. The SCASDP Grant is akeypart ofthat strategy. We encourage the DOT to respond favorably onYakima's Application and look forward to working with all parties to move our mutual plan forward. Please letme know ifAlaska canprovide anything further regarding this matter.

int as er Manager, Media & Market Strategy Alaska Airlines, Inc

f> 0 X (1 ~ 9 C. () S E t\ TTL E. \V.A. 98 J 68,,0900'? 0 6

- 4 3 ,1.~ L10
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January

28, 2020.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-19-00996-CV

WATER RELEASE VICTIMS OF NORTHEAST HOUSTON, Appellant

V.

THE TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND THE SAN 

JACINTO RIVER AUTHORITY, Appellees

On Appeal from the 334th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2019-56901

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a judgment signed December 6, 2019. On January 8, 

2020, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The 

motion is granted. 

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Zimmerer, Spain, and Hassan.
#### James F. Childs, Appellant, v. George C. Gordon, Respondent, Impleaded, etc.

Judgment affirmed Opinion by

Haight, J.
#### Mason v. City of Sioux Falls *et al.*

(Opinion filed April 5, 1892.)

Appeal from circuit court, Minnehaha county. Hon. Frank R. Aikens, Judge.

Action by Joseph M. Mason against the city of Sioux Falls and George R. Sammons, its treasurer, to enjoin the sale of certain real estate. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.

Reversed.

*Charles L. Broclcway,*for appellants.

*Keith &*Bates, for respondent.

Corson, J.

The facts in this case are the same as those in the case of Mason v. City of Sioux Falls, except as to the amount of the assessment. The two cases were tried together in the court below, by stipulation, and were presented to this court together upon one abstract and set of briefs. This case is therefore reversed for the reasons given in the opinion in the lstst above entitled case. (2 S. D. 640.) All the judges con- ' curring.
From: pjs123@frontier.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:35:48 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 J. Snyder

Lincoln, IL 62656
No. 263, Misc.

#### Teamoh *v.*New Jersey.

Supreme Court of New Jersey. Certiorari denied.
Betty 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 30, 2014

No. 04-14-00078-CV

RIVER CITY CARE CENTER, INC. d/b/a River City Care Center,

Appellant

v.

Betty TAYLOR,

Appellee

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011-CI-15814

Honorable Barbara Hanson Nellermoe, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant's unopposed motion for extension of time to file reply brief is hereby 

GRANTED. Time is extended to October 16, 2014.

_________________________________

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 30th day of September, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                             WORLD OF SCIENCE, INC.
                       COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE NET LOSS
                     (In thousands, except per share data)

                                                   Quarter Ended
 
                                November 1, 1997             November 1, 1996

 
Net loss                            $(1,415)                        $(1,069)
                                          
Weighted average common shares             
outstanding                           5,064                           3,423
                                           
Per share net loss                  $ (0.28)                        $ (0.31)



There is no material difference in the number of shares used in computing per
share amounts as calculated for primary and fully diluted earnings per share.
EXHIBIT 12

STATEMENT SETTING FORTH COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF PROFIT TO FIXED CHARGES

YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, (Millions of dollars)(Unaudited) 

 **   2000   
 **   1999   
 **   1998   
Net profit
$159 
 
$128 
 
$112 
Add:
 
 
 
 
 
Provision for income taxes
84 
 
75 
 
67 
Deduct:
 
 
 
 
 
Equity in profit of partnerships
   (3)
 
   (2)
 
   (3)
Profit before taxes 
$240 
 
$201 
 
$176 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Fixed charges:
 
 
 
 
 
Interest on borrowed funds
$725 
 
$569 
 
$502 
Rentals at computed interest*
    5 
 
    5 
 
    4 
Total fixed charges
$730 
 
$574 
 
$506 
Profit before taxes plus fixed charges
$970 
 

 
$775 
 
$ 682 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ratio of profit before taxes plus 

fixed charges to fixed charges
1.33
 
1.35 
 
1.35 

*Those portions of rent expense that are representative of interest cost.

 ******
From: wannie19@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:38:19 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,

Wangola Forth

, 42082-9242
#### Hiram C. Pettibone, Appellant, v. William E. Drakeford, Respondent.

Memorandum of decision and order amended by adding after the first words “costs ” the words “to abide the event.”
[Crim. No. 3071.

Second Appellate District, Division Two.

March 10, 1938.]

#### THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. FRANK AVANZI, Appellant.

Gladys Towles Root for Appellant.

U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, and Walter Bowers, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent.

McCOMB, J.

From a judgment of guilty of violation of section 288a of the Penal Code after trial before the court without a jury defendant appeals. There is also a purported appeal from the sentence.

Viewing the evidence most favorable to the People (respondent) the facts in the instant case are:

> September 20, 1937, while in a state of voluntary intoxication, defendant committed an act prohibited by section 288a of the Penal Code upon a female eight years of age.

*302Defendant relies for reversal of the judgment on the following proposition:

> *Defendant was not guilty of the offense of which he was convicted, because at the time of the alleged offense he was in a state of voluntary intoxication.*

This proposition is untenable. An act committed by a person while in a state of voluntary intoxication is none the less criminal by reason of his having been in such condition. *(People*v. *Burkhart,*211 Cal. 726, 731 [297 Pac. 11].) Whenever the actual existence of any particular purpose, motive or intent is a necessary element to constitute any particular species or degree of crime, the fact that the accused was intoxicated at the time may be taken into consideration by the trier of fact in determining the purpose, motive or intent with which the act was committed. (Pen. Code, see. 22.)

Section 288a of the Penal Code reads as follows:

> “Any person participating in the act of copulating the mouth of one person with the sexual organ of another is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for not exceeding fifteen years.”

It is clear that no particular purpose, motive or intent is a necessary element of the crime described. Therefore in the present case it was immaterial whether defendant was intoxicated or not at the time he committed the prohibited act.

An appeal does not lie from the sentence. *(People*v. *Arrangoiz,*24 Cal. App. (2d) 116 [74 Pac. (2d) 789]; *People*v. *Freeman,*24 Cal. App. (2d) 619 [75 Pac. (2d) 640].) Therefore the purported appeal from the sentence is dismissed.

The judgment is affirmed.

Crail, P. J., and Wood, J., concurred.