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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:26:47 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,

Tim Nieman

Duluth, GA 30097
From: Dot

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Preventative Reproductive Health Care

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 9:54:26 AM

The US Constitution has separated Church and State. This was a wise separation. Churches can

teach what they wish; they do not have the right to impose their teachings on the public. Maintain

the separation of Church and State; do not allow religious institutions to claim exemptions to

women’s rights! End tax breaks for religious institutions!
From: womanoffaith7@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:54:24 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,

Susan Shea

Mission Viejo, CA 92692
No. 458, Misc.

#### Wallace *v.*District of Columbia Parole Board et al.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney Gen-*

*eral Marshall, Harold H. Greene*and *Gerald P. Choppin*for respondents.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and for other relief denied.
From: bjcgccc@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:47:52 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 C. Grant

Maggie Valley, NC 28751
-83 -82 -81 -80 -79 -78 -77 -76

37 38 39 40 41



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 06/18 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 18 Jun 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.92 N 77.01 WMeters AGL
(R.D. 11489)

#### Wheeler & Miller *v.*United States

Entry No. 1826.

(Decided February 14, 1968)

*Sharretts, Daley, Garter & Blauvelt*for tbe plaintiff.

*Bdtvin L. Weisl, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for tbe defendant.

*784Rao, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the parties hereto:

> 1- That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, et seq.).

> 2- That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to the merchandise herein.

> 3- That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised the merchandise in the appeal for reappraisement herein for regular duty purposes.

> *4r-*That the plaintiff duly filed an appeal for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 8.

> 5- That at the time relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are

> Purchase Price Foreign Market Value

> Per 1000 Sq. Ft.

> $24.35 $27.88

> 6- That the appraiser’s finding of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, is correct.

> 7- That said appeal is submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise involved herein, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 162), to be as indicated in paragraph numbered 5 of said stipulation. As to all other items of merchandise not identified, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
From: amachac@lgc.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:13:56 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.

Respectfully,

Andrianne Machac

Sincerely,

Andrianne Machac

Katy, TX 77450
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Cruisecam International, Inc., a Florida
corporation, (the "Company") 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, D. Scott Watkins, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:

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/ D. Scott Watkins
--------------------
D. Scott Watkins
Chief Financial Officer
March 28, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 1ST QUARTER
1999 FORM 10-Q UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM
10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          13,123
<SECURITIES>                                    13,351
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,729
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                47,286
<PP&E>                                          24,757
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  72,966
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,785
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            78
<OTHER-SE>                                      52,215
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    72,966
<SALES>                                         10,316
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,316
<CGS>                                            7,590
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,590
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,440
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 193
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,493)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (366)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,127)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,127)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.14)
        

</TABLE>
From: BKILXX@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:05:21 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,

Dale Arentsen

Aurora, IL 60506
#### In the Matter of Charles R Purdy v. Orlando L. Stewart.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsOverview of Risk Mitigation for Safety-Critical Computer-Based SystemsThis report presents a high-level overview of a general strategy to mitigate the risks from threats to safety-critical computer-based systems. In this context, a safety threat is a process or phenomenon that can cause operational safety hazards in the form of computational system failures. This report is intended to provide insight into the safety-risk mitigation problem and the characteristics of potential solutions. The limitations of the general risk mitigation strategy are discussed and some options to overcome these limitations are provided. This work is part of an ongoing effort to enable well-founded assurance of safety-related properties of complex safety-critical computer-based aircraft systems by developing an effective capability to model and reason about the safety implications of system requirements and design.Document ID20160001630Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsTorres-Pomales, Wilfredo*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredFebruary 5, 2016Publication DateNovember 1, 2015Subject CategoryComputer SystemsReport/Patent NumberNF1676L-22692L-20618L-20622NASA-TM-2015-218988Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 999182.02.50.07.02Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20160001630.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
(R.D. 11413)

#### Parsons & Whittemore, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided December 5, 1967)

*Sharp, Solter & Hutchison*for the plaintiff.

*Edwin L. Weisl, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subj ect to the approval of the Court:

1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, et seq.).

2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign mar*784ket value (Sec. 164) as to the merchandise listed on 'Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

5. That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Option Cancellation Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 
 OPTION CANCELLATION AGREEMENT 
 December 27, 2012 

Dear Tim Ruane, 
 This letter
relates to the nonqualified stock option to acquire 2,844,374 shares of InSite Vision Incorporated (“Company”) common stock granted to you on December 1, 2010 (“2010 Option”) pursuant to the Notice of Grant of
Stock Option and Terms and Conditions of Stock Option executed by you and the Company on December 9, 2010 (“Grant Notice”). 
 In consideration of the nonqualified stock option to acquire 1,100,000 shares of Company common stock to be granted to you on December 27, 2012 and the nonqualified stock option to acquire 244,374
shares of Company common stock to be granted to you on January 2, 2013 (“New Options”), you agree that a portion of the 2010 Option in respect of the right to acquire 1,344,374 shares of Company common stock is hereby cancelled
effective as of the date of this letter (“Cancelled Option”) and that, from and after the date of this letter, you will have no rights whatsoever with respect to the Cancelled Option. 

You further agree that, effective as of the date of this letter, the Grant Notice will be deemed amended hereby to remove the Cancelled
Option from the Grant Notice such that the Cancelled Option will no longer constitute part of the 2010 Option. 
 Except with
respect to the cancellation of the Cancelled Option as described herein, this letter will not affect the 2010 Option or the Grant Notice, which will otherwise remain in effect in accordance with their terms. 

 

	
	Sincerely,
	
	         /s/ Lou
Drapeau            

	Lou Drapeau
	Chief Financial Officer


  

			
	Acknowledged and Agreed:
		
	           /s/ Timothy Ruane
	 	Date: December 27, 2012
	Timothy Ruane