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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:10:56 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.

Sincerely,

Robert Vanian

San Diego, CA 92107
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Dean
Witter Cornerstone Fund IV and is qualified in its entirety by references
to such financial instruments.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      91,656,399
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  305,391
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              97,292,310<F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                97,292,310<F2>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            19,489,622<F3>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,956,901
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             11,532,721
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         11,532,721
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                11,532,721
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>In addition to cash and receivables, total assets include net unrealized
gain on open contracts of $5,330,520.
<F2>Liabilities include redemptions payable of $1,269,513, accrued
management fees of $322,552, common administrative expenses payable
of $126,007, accrued brokerage commission of $74,340, and accrued
transaction fees and costs of $3,654.
<F3>Total revenue includes realized trading revenue of $10,304,825, net
change in unrealized of $5,260,377 and interest income of $3,924,420.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure 

(SPCC) Rule

The Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule includes requirements for oil 

spill prevention, preparedness, and response to prevent oil discharges to navigable waters 

and adjoining shorelines. The rule requires specific facilities to prepare, amend, and 

implement SPCC Plans. The SPCC rule is part of the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation, 

which also includes the Facility Response Plan (FRP) rule. 

http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/spcc/index.htm
EX-10.12



 Exhibit 10.12 
 [*]: THE CONFIDENTIAL PORTION HAS BEEN OMITTED PURSUANT TO A REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT AND THE OMITTED MATERIAL HAS BEEN FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION. 

ADDENDUM NO. 1 

TO THE SHIPBUILDING CONTRACT 
 HULL NO. [*] 
 DATED 14 SEPTEMBER 2012 

between 
 MEYER WERFT GMBH, a
company organized and existing under the laws of Germany, and having its principal office at Industriegebiet Süd, D-26871 Papenburg, Germany (the “Builder”); and 

BREAKAWAY FOUR, LTD., a company incorporated in Bermuda and having its registered office at Cumberland House, 9th Floor, 1 Victoria Street, Hamilton HM11, Bermuda (the
“Buyer”); and 
 NCL CORPORATION LTD., a company incorporated in Bermuda having its registered office at
Cumberland House, 9th Floor, 1 Victoria Street, Hamilton
HM11, Bermuda (“NCLC”). 
 Whereas, Article 14, Clause 11.2 states: “If this Contract has not come into effect by midnight in
Miami on October 15, 2012 either party may, by written notice given to the other by midnight in Miami on October 31, 2012 cancel this Contract.” 
 Whereas the parties desire to amend a date within Article 14, Clause 11.2 states: “If this Contract has not come into effect by midnight in Miami on October 15, 2012 either party may, by written
notice given to the other by midnight in Miami on October 31, 2012 cancel this Contract.” 
 Now, therefore, in consideration of the
premises, and for other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency and receipt of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 
  

	 	1.	Article 14, Clause 11.2 of the Contract is herewith amended as follows: 

 If this Contract has not come into effect by midnight in Miami on October 17, 2012 either party may, by written notice given to the other by midnight in Miami on October 31, 2012 cancel this Contract.

 If this Contract has not come into effect by midnight in Miami on October 17, 2012 either party may, by written notice given
to the other by midnight in Miami on October 31, 2012 cancel this Contract. 
  

	 	2.	Words and expressions defined in the Contract shall have the same meanings when used herein. 









	 	3.	Except as set forth in this Addendum No. 1, the Contract shall remain unchanged and this Addendum No. 1 shall be treated as an integral part of the Contract.


 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Builder, the Buyer and NCLC have duly executed this Addendum No. 1 

 

					
	 /s/ signature illegible
	 		 	
			
	For and on behalf of MEYER WERFT GmbH	 		 	
	October 15, 2012	 		 	/s/ signature illegible
			
	 /s/ Wendy Beck
	 		 	
			
	For and on behalf of Breakaway Four, Ltd.	 		 	
	October 15, 2012	 		 	
			
	 /s/ Wendy Beck
	 		 	
			
	For and on behalf of NCL Corporation Ltd.	 		 	
	October 15, 2012
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S

N O . W R - 8 5 , 4 0 8 - 0 1 E X P A R T E P E D R O V A L E N T I N - E S C O B A R , A p p l i c a n t O N A P P L I C A T I O N F O R A W R I T O F H A B E A S C O R P U S C A U S E N O . F - 2 0 1 4 - 1 1 4 5 - A W H C - 1 I N T H E 1 6 D I S T R I C T C O U R T T H F R O M D E N T O N C O U N T Y A L C A L A , J., fi led a concurring opin ion in wh ich J O H N S O N , J., joined . CONCURR ING

OP INION I join this Court’s rema

nd order be cause I ag ree with its observa tion that applicant has alleg ed fac ts that “if true, might entitle h i m to relief .” Be cause applicant has pleade d a colora ble ineffe ctive-a ssistance-of

-c o u n s e l c la im, I would order the habea s court on rema nd to appoint counsel for him upon reque st if he is indig ent, reg ardle ss of whether the trial court holds a hear ing. See Ex p a r te P o in te r , 492 S.W .3d 318, 320-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (per curia m) (Alca la, J ., concur ring ). At a minimum , howeve r, in addition to this Court’s order ’s curr ent admonition that the appointment of counsel is ma

ndatory for an indige nt a

pplicant upon re quest if the habea s court holds a hear ing, I would include a further admonishment that an indige nt a pplicant is “ entitled” to the appointment of counsel upon reque st “if the court conclude s that the interests of justice require repr esenta tion.” See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . A R T . 1.051(d). Filed: Oc tober 5, 2016 Do Not Publish
No. 68081.

#### Kwan Yuen Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/5608, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Oliver, O.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of rattancore kleenex box covers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Quon Quon Company*v. *United States*(41 Oust. Ct. 178, O.D. 2038), the claim at 16% percent ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 412, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 51802), for manufactures of wood, not specially provided for, was sustained. The items marked “B,” stipulated to consist of rattancore flower cages the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Quon Quon Company*v. *United States*(41 Cust. Ct. 181, C.D. 2039), were held dutiable at 45 *245percent under paragraph 409 as articles, wholly or partly manufactured of rattan, or at 25 percent under the provision in said paragraph, as modified by the Japanese Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 53865), supplemented, by Presidential proclamation (T.D. 53877). The items marked “0,” stipulated to consist of trays in part of rattan or bamboo similar to the trays in part of rattan the subject of Abstract 66729, were held dutiable at 25 percent under said paragraph 409, as modified, *supra.*The items marked “D,” stipulated to consist of trays, etc., not in part of rattan, similar to those the subject of said Abstract 66729, were held dutiable at 16% percent under the provision in paragraph 412, as modified by the Annecy Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 52373), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T.D. 52476), for manufactures of wood, not specially provided for, as claimed.
No. 63768.

protests 58/13973 and 58/13974 (Detroit).

#### Import & Export Service Company and Reid Tool Supply Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is not decorated, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 65973.

#### Scope Instrument Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 58/14812 (New York).

*285Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of metal map measures, not plated with platinum, gold, or silver, or colored with gold lacquer, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Kaufman & Vinson Co. v. United States*(44 Cust. Ct. 238, C.D. 2180), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. P68/434.

protest 61/16360 (Los Angeles).

#### TAP Equipment Co., dba Thrifty Equipment Co. *v.*United States,

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of parts of D-2 and D-4 diesel engines which are parts of agricultural tractors similar in all material respects to those the subject of *TAP Equipment Co.,*dba *Thrifty Equipment Co.*v. *United States*(58 Cust. Ct. 559, C.D. 3051), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: estella@whiteboardlabs.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Rescind the mandate -contraceptives and sterilizationDate: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:44:59 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.

Please listen to the American people that are calling out to you!

Sincerely,

Estella Sanchez Hale

Houston, TX 77042
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 EducationEvaluationEvaluation MethodsMathematics EducationPortfolio Assessment

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
Before the Second Division,

July 14, 1966

No. P66/157. —

#### The Buhler Corp. *v.*United States, protests 65/2256, etc. (New York).

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of parts essential to and dedicated to use with food preparing machinery similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Standard Milling Co.*v. *United States*(50 Cust. Ct. 53, C.D. 2388), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
(UP. 

October 29, 2009 

0° °40'1 -? 

Director, Chemical Control Division (7405M) 

Room 4146 EPA East 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1201 Constitution Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

202-564-4760 

Attn: 

Re: 

~` ~" `? 

6= 0 1 

DuPont Corporate Remediation Group 

Chestnut Run Plaza, Building 715 

4417 Lancaster Pike 

Wilmington, DE 19805 

Document Control Office 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 

EPA East, Room 6428 

U.S . Environmental Protection Agency 

1201 Constitution Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

202-564-8930 

EPA Docket ID Number OPPT-2004-0113 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the U.S . Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company (DuPont) for a 

Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Site-Related Environmental Assessment Program 

(November 3, 2005) 

Quarterly MOU Status Report #16, Phase II Monitoring/Sampling 

Work Plan, DuPont Washington Works (October 29, 2009) 

Dear Sir/Madam: 

This Quarterly MOU Status Report #16 is submitted in accordance with Section V.B.3 of the 

above-identified MOU. All Phase II Work Plan related activities have been completed and the 

Assessments, required under Section V. D., have been submitted to EPA. In addition, the Peer 

Consultation Process (PCP) required under Section V.E.2 of the MOU is currently underway. 

Data reported in this quarterly MOU status report were received by DuPont as of November 23, 

2009, are not part of the Phase II MOU monitoring activities, but provided by DuPont for 

completeness of study. An index of this status report is provided as an Attachment to this letter. 

If you need any additional information or finther clarification, please contact me (302-999-6197) 

or David W. Boothe (302-999-4091). 

Andrew S. Hartten 

Project Director 

Attachment: 

Enclosures: 

Index of report documents (1 pfge) 

1 paper copy of the Quarterly MOU Status Report #16 - October 29, 2009 

1 digital copy of the Quarterly MOU Status Report # 16 - October 29, 2009 

CONTAINS NO CBI 

4-4~ 

EI. du Pont do Nomoun and CaaOany 3 a-a 43 7 
Docket No. OPPT-2004-0113 October 29, 2009 

EPA-DuPont MOU 

Index 

Final Analvtical Sampline Results - Ouarte rly MOU Status Reao rt #16 

Document/Report Title-Pauer Copy No. of Paees* 

1 paper copy of the Quarterly MOU Status Report #16, 192 pages 

Phase 11 Monitoring/Sampling Work Plan, DuPont 

Washington Works (OPPT-2004-0113 PFOA Site-Related 

Environmental Assessment Program) 

Document/Report Title-Electronic Couy No. of Pages 

CD 1 of 1 containing the Quarterly MOU Status Report #16, 190 pages total 

Phase 11 Monitoring/Sampling Work Plan, DuPont 

Washington Works (OPPT-2004-0113 PFOA Site-Related 

Environmental Assessment Program) as one PDF file titled, 

Quarterly MOU Status Report #16 102909.PDF 

Page 2 of 2 OPPT-2004-0113 PFOA Site-Related Environmental Assessment Program
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-40687

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CARMELO LOPEZ-NIEVES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:09-CR-180-1

Before SMITH, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Carmelo Lopez-Nieves

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Lopez-Nieves has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 20, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 09-40687 Document: 00511086014 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2010
#### Edwin H. Williams, as Executor of Mary J. L. Williams, Deceased, Respondent, *v.*Herman L. Sweet et al., Appellants.

*Williams*v. Sweet, 140 App. Div. 941, affirmed.

(Argued January 30, 1913;

decided February 14, 1913.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered December 10, 1910, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee in an action to recover upon a promissory note defended on the ground of usury.

*Edwin C. Baker*for appellants.

*Timothy Curtin*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Werner, Chase, Collin, Cuddeback and Miller, JJ.
Exhibit
32.1
 
 Certification
of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
 Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 I, Lars
Pearl, President, Chief Executive Officer and  Chief Financial Officer
of Aurora Gold Corporation (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:
 
 1.
              The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30,
      2009 which this certification accompanies 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.
 
 
 Date:
              January 27,
      2010
              
              BY:
              /s/ Lars
      PearlLars
      PearlPresident,
      CEO and CFO
 
 
 
 
 
 This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.