alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: nrw1943@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:32:17 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,

Neill Walker

Bulverde, TX 78163
From: lesterspratt@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:45:44 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

Please 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, please

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).

Please 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,

Kathy Langenberg

Hallettsville, TX 77964
From: RichaEscobal@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:04:42 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,

Richard H. Escobales, Jr.

Buffalo, NY 14223
#### The Home Bank, Appellant, v. John C. Drumgoole, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed. Opinion by Brady, J.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Petty, Chafin and Senior Judge Annunziata 

WASHINGTON DULLES INTERNATIONAL AND 

 INS. CO. OF THE STATE OF PA. 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1169-14-4 PER CURIAM 

 NOVEMBER 12, 2014 

ATIA ELYASS 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Dennis Boyd Cook; Midkiff, Muncie & Ross, P.C., on brief), for 

appellants. 

 (W. David Falcon; Chasenboscolo Injury Lawyers, on brief), for 

appellee. 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 

 Washington Dulles International and Ins. Co. of the State of Pa. (collectively 

“employer”) appeal the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission (“commission”) 

awarding Atia Elyass (“claimant”) temporary total disability benefits from January 3 through 

January 7, 2012 and finding that employer failed to establish the doctrine of res judicata barred 

the award. On appeal, employer argues that on August 17, 2012, a deputy commissioner 

determined claimant failed to prove an injury by accident, claimant did not request review of the 

order, claimant subsequently filed an additional claim, the claim was identical to the one denied 

by the August 17, 2012 order, and the doctrine of res judicata barred further litigation of the 

claim. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is 

without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final 

opinion. See Elyass v. Washington Dulles Int’l, JCN 00000786796 (May 28, 2014). We 

UNPUBLISHED 
- 2 - 

dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

Affirmed.
cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge Ronald R. Santos Attorney General/Carson City Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2

(0) I947A
#### Thomas W. Butts et al., Appellants, *v.*Marie J. C. Carey, Respondent, Impleaded with Others.

*Butts*v. *Carey,*143 App. Div. 356, appeal dismissed.

(Submitted December 13, 1912;

decided December 31, 1912.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered March 25, 1911, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term and granting a new trial in an action to impress an attorney’s lien upon certain real property.

*W. P. Vining, P. J. Dobson*and *James J. Thornley*for appellants.

*Louis O. Van Doren*for respondent.

Appeal dismissed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock, Chase and Collin, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Application of the Uvalde Asphalt Paving Company, Respondent, for Leave to Examine Certain Records in the Office of the President of the Borough of the Bronx. The City of New York et al., Appellants.

*Matter of Uvalde Asphalt Paving Co.,*153 App. Div. 892, affirmed.

(Argued January 6, 1913;

decided January 21, 1913.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered November 1, 1912, which affirmed an order of Special Term granting a motion for permission to inspect the books in the office of the president of the borough of the Bronx.

*Archibald R. Watson, Corporation Counsel (Clarence L. Barber*and *Terence Farley*of counsel), for appellants.

*Edward M. Grout*and *James F. McKinney*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Werner, Hiscock, Chase, Collin and Hogan, JJ. Absent: Willard Bartlett, J.
#### John Bardes et al., Respondents, *v.*Martin Herman, Appellant.

*Bardes*v. Herman, 144 App. Div. 772, affirmed.

(Argued December 18, 1912;

decided March 4, 1913.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered June 12, 1911, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to compel the specific performance of a contract to purchase land.

*Selden Bacon*and *Saul S. Myers*for appellant.

*William Allaire Shortt*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; on opinion of Burr, J., below.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock, Chase and Collin, JJ.
Exhibit 4.5 Certificate of Cancellation of Statutory Trust






Exhibit 4.5


STATE OF DELAWARE
CERTIFICATE OF CANCELLATION
OF STATUTORY TRUST
Pursuant to Title 12, Section 3810(d) of the Delaware Statutory Trust Act, the undersigned trustees have executed the following certificate:
1.    Name of Statutory Trust: PEBO Capital Trust I
2.    The Certificate of Statutory Trust was filed on April 13, 1999.
3.    This Certificate of Cancellation of Statutory Trust shall be effective upon filing.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Certificate of Cancellation of Statutory Trust, or caused this Certificate of Cancellation of Statutory Trust to be executed by a duly authorized officer, this 19th day of December, 2012 A.D.
	
		
	 
	ADMINISTRATIVE TRUSTEES:

	By:
	/s/ EDWARD G. SLOANE, JR.                     
Edward G. Sloane, Jr.,
  as Administrative Trustee

	By:
	/s/ DOUGLAS G. ANKROM                        
Douglas G. Ankrom,
   as Administrative Trustee

	By:
	/s/ M. RYAN KIRKHAM                               
M. Ryan Kirkham,
   as Administrative Trustee

	 
	 

	 
	DELAWARE TRUSTEE AND PROPERTY TRUSTEE:

	 
	WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY,
   as Delaware Trustee and Property Trustee

	By:
	/s/ JOSHUA C. JONES                                  
Name: Joshua C. Jones
Title: Financial Services Officer
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsMultimodal Perception and Multicriterion Control of Nested SystemsThis report reviews the operational demands made of a Shuttle pilot or commander within the context of a proven empirical methodology for describing human sensorimotor performance and whole-body coordination in mechanically and perceptually complex environments. The conclusions of this review pertain to a) methods for improving our understanding of the psychophysics and biomechanics of visual/manual control and whole-body coordination in space vehicle cockpits; b) the application of scientific knowledge about human perception and performance in dynamic inertial conditions to the development of technology, procedures, and training for personnel in space vehicle cockpits; c) recommendations for mitigation of safety and reliability concerns about human performance in space vehicle cockpits; and d) in-flight evaluation of flight crew performance during nominal and off-nominal launch and reentry scenarios.Document ID19980197299Acquisition SourceHeadquartersDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsRiccio, Gary E.*(Nascent Technologies Ltd. Houston, TX United States)*McDonald, P. Vernon*(Wyle Labs., Inc. Huntsville, AL United States)*Irvin, Gregg E.*(Nascent Technologies Ltd. Houston, TX United States)*Bloomberg, Jacob J.*(NASA Johnson Space Center Houston, TX United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateApril 1, 1998Subject CategoryMan/System Technology And Life SupportReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.60:3703S-835NASA-TP-1998-3703Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19980197299.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
#### Una Goslin, Respondent, *v.*Annie I. Magher, Appellant.

*Goslin*v. Magher, 141 App. Div. 936, affirmed.

(Argued January 33, 1913;

decided February 11, 1913.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered December 12,1910, affirming a judgment in favor *717of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for alleged alienation of affections.

*Irving L. Ernst*for appellant.

*Edwin T. Taliaferro*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Hiscock, Collin, Cuddeback and Miller, JJ. Absent: Werner, J.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT
In the Interest of J.L., a child, ) ) ) W.K., ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D19-226 ) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND ) FAMILIES and GUARDIAN AD LITEM, ) ) Appellees. ) ) Opinion filed July 3, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Patrice Moore, Judge. Ita M. Neymotin, Regional Counsel, and Joseph Thye Sexton, Assistant Regional Counsel, Fort Myers, for Appellant. Bernie McCabe, State Attorney, and Leslie M. Layne, Assistant State Attorney, Clearwater, for Appellee Department of Children and Families. Thomasina Moore and Craig Robert Lewis, Appellate Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellee Guardian ad Litem.- 2 -

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SILBERMAN, ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D. 

### C. 

# RECEIVED DEC 23 2014 HEARING DOCKET IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO. FAA-2014-0807 PAZ AVIATION, INC. FAA CASE NO. 2011S0190272 Respondent Judge J.E. Sullivan

Joint Briefing Schedule
Pursuant to Judge Sullivan's Order Directing Parties to Confer and File an Agreed Briefing Schedule, dated November 19, 2014, the parties submit the following briefing schedule due dates:

a. January 23,2015- Paz Aviation's Briefin Support ofits Motion to Dismiss b. February 15,2015- Agency's Response to Paz Aviation's Briefin Support ofits Motion to Dismiss c. March 15, 2015- Paz Aviation's Reply to Agency's Response d. A1picM;2015- Motion Hearing e;**Ap~~l** 7, 2015 -Alternative Date for Motion Hearing f. Appl 9, 2015- Alternative Date for Motion Hearing

# ub~itted this

# )1!__, day of 

# Vi LMr/

# ~ ,2014. !

### --\1---"------J.J'c--=·~,·. =.:_· • < . William Vines
. ' ·• , ,. · . , Counsel for Conl.plainant ,. .. ··· .,,,,.

'I ,I ' ,, ; ,- .- 

# .'CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing Joint Briefing Schedule was sent to the following via certified mail: Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000 The Honorable J.E. Sullivan Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 Facsimile: (202) 366-7536 David M. McDonald, Esq. McDonald & McDonald Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 669122-9428 Miami, FL 33135-2321 Telephone: (305) 643-5313 Facsimile: (305) 643-4990 

# Onmru**~1\\0~** Donna Stanley Legal Assistant Office ofthe Regional Counsel 

# nrc 1 Dated

2
From: mdturner77@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:24:43 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,

Michael Turner

Roseville, CA 95678
From: david_larson@ymail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:14:34 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,

David Larson

Jackson, MO 63755
LNB Bancorp, Inc.Exhibit to Form 10-K(for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004)S-K Reference Number 23Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting FirmThe Board of DirectorsLNB Bancorp, Inc.:We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registrationstatements No. 33-64034 and No. 33-53210 on Form S-8 and No.333-43441 and No. 333-58414 on Form S-3 of LNBBancorp, Inc. of our reports dated March 11, 2005, with respectto the consolidated balance sheets of LNB Bancorp, Inc. andsubsidiaries as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the relatedconsolidated statements of income, shareholders’ equity andcash flows for each of the years in the three-year period endedDecember 31, 2004, management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as ofDecember 31, 2004 and the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting as of December 31, 2004, which reportsappear in the December 31, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K ofLNB Bancorp, Inc.