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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:27:15 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,

Churchill Young

Rocky Mount, NC 27804
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 1ST
QUARTER 1999 FORM 10-Q/A UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q/A
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           6,800
<SECURITIES>                                    24,633
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,702
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                52,048
<PP&E>                                          15,433
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  68,236
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,216
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            78
<OTHER-SE>                                       50852
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    68,236
<SALES>                                         12,089
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,089
<CGS>                                            7,146
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,146
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,280
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 159
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,858
<INCOME-TAX>                                       779
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,079
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,079
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.01

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. (the company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended April 1, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark S. Thompson, Chief Executive Officer of the company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (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 the operations of the company.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Mark S. Thompson   
|Mark S. Thompson       
|Chief Executive Officer
|May 11, 2007
EXHIBIT 99.1



First National Lincoln Corporation Declares Dividend


DAMARISCOTTA, Maine--(BUSINESS WIRE) -- March 17, 2005 -- The Board of
Directors of First National Lincoln Corporation (NASDAQ NM: FNLC), today
declared a quarterly dividend of 12.5 cents per share. This first-quarter
dividend, which is payable April 29, 2005, to shareholders of record as of
April 8, 2005, represents an increase of 21.0% or 1.7 cents per share over the
first-quarter dividend declared in 2004 of 10.3 cents per share, after
adjusting for the 2004 three-for-one stock split.

"With this increase of 0.5 cents per share over last year's fourth-quarter
dividend of 12.0 cents per share, the Company has now raised its dividend for
38 consecutive quarters," noted Daniel R. Daigneault, FNLC's President & Chief
Executive Officer. "This translates into an annual dividend of 50.0 cents per
share, and based on yesterday's closing price of $17.40 per share, our dividend
yield is 2.87%.

"I am pleased that we have continued the trend of increasing our dividend each
quarter," President Daigneault went on. "Even though the number of outstanding
shares has increased substantially as a result of the FNB Bankshares merger in
January, sharing our profits in the form of cash dividends continues to be seen
by our Board of Directors as important to our Shareholders. For these reasons,
I continue to view First National Lincoln Corporation as an extremely
attractive investment alternative."

First National Lincoln Corporation, headquartered in Damariscotta, Maine, is
the bank holding company for The First, N.A. and First Advisors. The First is
an independent community bank serving Midcoast and Downeast Maine with fourteen
offices in Lincoln, Knox, Hancock and Washington Counties that provide consumer
and commercial banking products and services. First Advisors provides
investment advisory and trust services from four offices in Damariscotta, Bar
Harbor, Boothbay Harbor and Brunswick, Maine.

Forward-looking and cautionary statements: except for the historical
information and discussions contained herein, statements contained in this
release may constitute "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements involve a
number of risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual
results to differ materially, as discussed in the company's filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

For additional information contact F. Stephen Ward, Executive Vice President &
Chief Financial Officer, at 207.563.3272.
No. 441.

#### Huff et al. *v.*United States.

*Nathan Witt*for petitioners.

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg*and *Sidney M. Glaser*for the United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
From: boanergescontractors@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:23:50 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,

Aaron McKinney

Fort Mill, SC 29708
From: Angus Crane [acrane@naima.org]

Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 3:19 PM

To: Hancy, Cindy Wang

Cc: Fairchild.Susan@epamail.epa.gov; Reeves, David

Subject: FW: Emission Source Stack Information

Attachments: Owens Corning Modeling Sources 06-08-11.xls

Importance: High

Ms. Hancy,

Attached please find the EPA spreadsheet reviewed by Owens Corning. Owens Corning has made 

corrections and, in some instances, added an additional column for clarification purposes. As noted 

below, Owens Corning has asked me to forward this to you.

Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Angus E. Crane

Executive Vice President, General Counsel

North American Insulation Manufacturers Association

Ph: (703) 684-0084 ext. 123

Fax: (703) 684-0427

Visit NAIMA online at:

www.NAIMA.org 

www.PipeInsulation.org 

Dear Angus,

Please find attached the EPA spreadsheet that we have reviewed. We have made corrections and added 

a column for clarification in some cases.

As mentioned on the call, we will have supplemental information to be submitted. We anticipate having 

this ready by middle of next week.

Thank you for coordinating the response to this request.

Regards

Robin Edmiston-Bennett 

ISB Environmental Network Leader 

Fax: 419-325-9778 

Phone: 740-328-2479 

Cell: 740-323-6664
Record of Ex Parte Contacts

Docket No. FAA-2011-0733 Directorate Identifier: 2010-NE-36-AD

With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval 

Holder, manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? (You might need to 

submit a separate record to the Rules Docket. The AD Manual defines “Ex Parte Contacts.”)

ORGANIZATION PERSON 

CONTACTED

DATE RESPONSE

ATA Joe White (email) 11/10/2010 No response.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other/Additional Information:
Exhibit 32.2


                                  CERTIFICATION


     In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Booth Creek Ski Holdings,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 1, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned, as the President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

     1.   The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
          Section 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.

September 15, 2003


                                        By:/s/ CHRISTOPHER P. RYMAN
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                               Christopher P. Ryman
                                          President and Chief Operating Officer
Exhibit 99.2

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


           I, Joseph B. Parsons, as Chief Financial Officer of Kasper A.S.L.,
Ltd. (the "Company") certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as adopted by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

           (1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the quarter ended June 28,
2003 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

           (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



Dated:  August 18, 2003

                                      /s/ Joseph B. Parsons
                                      -----------------------------------------
                                      Joseph B. Parsons,
                                      Chief Financial Officer of the Company
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

JERMALL JOHNSON,

Petitioner

v.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ERIE

COUNTY,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 34 WM 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 28th day of August , 2019, the Application for Leave to File Original

Process is GRANTED, and the Application for Leave to Amend and the Petition for Writ

of Mandamus are DENIED.
From: dadr043@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:21:02 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 Reeser

Hatfield, PA 19440
From: jeffrey.w.hill@us.army.mil

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:34:54 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,

Jeff Hill

Hannibal, MO 63401
From: eseaman3@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:17:23 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am not happy that my government is forcing my taxes to pay for the murder of unborn babies. If

people want to pay for abortions, have them donate to their local Planned Parenthood clinic. DO NOT

use my money, use your own.

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,

Ed Seaman

Santa Barbara, CA 93111
[No. 3436.]

#### Empire Ranch *&*Cattle Co. v. Lumelius.

1. Tax *Titles*— Tax *Deed Not Recorded.*A tax deed is without effect to set in motion the statute of limitations, until recorded.

*52Decided October 14, A. D. 1912.

Rehearing denied November 11, A. D. 1912.

2. *Evidence*— Documents *Pleaded But Not Proven,*are considered as non-existing.

*Appeal from Washington District Court.*Hoe. H. P. Burke, Judge.

Mr.B. H. Gilmore, for appellant.

Mr. Isaac Peltoe, for appellee.

Cunningham, Judge.

On February 13, 1907, appellee brought his action in the district court of Washington County to quiet title to section thirty-three (33), township'three (3) north, range fifty (50) west, Washington County. On the trial it was stipulated that the plaintiff had a good title to the land in question, unless the same had been divested by tax deed and the statute of limitations. Appellant based its title upon a tax deed, which, according to its answer, was not filed for record until November 18, .1902 — less than five years prior to the filing of- plaintiff’s complaint. Therefore, it will not be necessary to consider the defenses set up by appellant in its answer, which are based upon the statute of limitations. The tax deed upon which the defendant predicated its claim of title was not intioduced in evidence. Therefore, under the ruling in No. 3432, *Empire Ranch & Cattle Company v. Langley, ante*49, the judgment of the trial court, which went in favor of the plaintiff, must be affirmed, and it will, not be necessary to consider the other alleged defects in appellant’s title.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

*Per Curiam.*

Morgae, Judge, not participating.
No. 59199.

protest 249441-K (New York).

#### H. George Caspari, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to the paper napkins the subject of *Wesley & Winter, Inc.*v. *United States*(32 Cust. Ct. 24, C. D. 1575). Upon the agreed statement of facts and following the cited authority, it was held that the merchandise is dutiable at 15 percent under paragraph 1413, as modified, *supra.*