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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:03:46 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

david lockett

Chatham, LA 71226
From: kleinshop@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:25:21 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,

Rebecca Klein

Winter Haven, FL 33884
Exhibit 10.1

 

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT

 

This Employment Agreement Amendment (the “Amendment”) is entered into on this 21st day of December, 2012 by and between Steinway, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (the “Company”) and Ronald Losby, (the “Executive”).

 

RECITALS

 

WHEREAS, the Executive entered into an Employment Agreement with Company dated May 1, 2011, (the “Agreement”) and

 

WHEREAS, the Company and Executive wish to make certain changes to the Agreement,

 

NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

 

AMENDMENT

 

1.              Termination.  Section 7.b. of the Agreement shall be amended by deleting the period at the end of 7.b.ii and inserting the following language: “provided, however, if such termination occurs within twelve (12) months after a Change of Control (as defined below) then the lump sum payment shall be two (2) times that amount.

 

iii.            A  “Change in Control” shall mean:  (a) a merger, reorganization, consolidation or similar event, whether in a single transaction or in a series of transactions (collectively the “Transaction”) unless immediately following such Transaction (and after giving effect to such Transaction) the Company’s stockholders immediately prior to the Transaction own at least 50% of the total combined voting power of the surviving or acquiring entity in substantially the same proportions as their ownership of the voting power of the Company’s outstanding securities immediately before such Transaction; (b) any person (having the meaning ascribed to such term in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“1934 Act”), including a “group” within the meaning of Section 13(d)(3)) has or acquires beneficial ownership (within the meaning of Rule 13d-3 under the 1934 Act) of at least 50% of the total combined voting power of the Company’s outstanding securities; or (c) the sale, transfer or other disposition of all or substantially all of the Company’s assets.”

 

2.              Other Matters.  Except as specifically amended herein all terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment on the day and year first written above.

 

	
Steinway, Inc.
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:
    	
/s/   Dennis M. Hanson
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Dennis   M. Hanson
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Executive   Vice President
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Executive
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
/s/   Ronald Losby
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Ronald   Losby
EXHIBIT 21.1


                          3COM CORPORATION SUBSIDIARIES

3Com Asia Limited (Hong Kong)
3Com Asia Pacific Rim PTE Limited (Singapore)
3Com Benelux B.V. (The Netherlands)
3Com Bulgaria EOOD (Bulgaria)
3Com Canada Inc. (Toronto)
3Com Corporation Zagreb (Croatia)
3Com Costa Rica S.A. (Costa Rica)
3Com Credit Corporation (California, U.S.A.)
3Com do Brasil Servicos Ltda. (Brazil)
3Com de Chile S.A. (Chile)
3Com de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Mexico)
3Com Development Corporation (California, U.S.A.)
3Com Engineering Limited (United Kingdom)
3Com Europe Limited (United Kingdom)
3Com Far East Limited (Cayman Islands)
3Com GmbH (Germany)
3Com Holdings Limited (Cayman Islands)
3Com Hungary Kft (Hungary)
3Com Iberia S.A. (Spain)
3Com International, Inc. (Delaware, U.S.A.)
3Com International (New Zealand) Limited (New Zealand)
3Com IFSC (Ireland)
3Com India Limited (India)
3Com Israel Limited (Israel)
3Com Limited (United Kingdom)
3Com Japan K.K. (Japan)
3Com Korea Limited (Korea)
3Com Mediteraneo S.r.l. (Italy)
3Com Network Management Ltd. (Israel)
3Com Nordic AB (Sweden)
3Com Philippines Inc. (Philippines)
3Com Russia OOO (Russia)
3Com S.A. (France)
3Com-Sonix Limited (United Kingdom)
3Com South Asia PTE. Ltd. (Singapore)
3Com Technologies (Cayman Islands)
3Com (Thailand) Co. Ltd. (Thailand)
3Com U.K. Holdings Limited (United Kingdom)
3Com (U.K.) Limited (United Kingdom)
3Com World Trade, Inc. (U.S. Virgin Islands)
U.S. Robotics Corporation (Delaware, U.S.A.)
U.S. Robotics Access Corporation (Delaware, U.S.A.)
U.S. Robotics Logistics SARL (France)
U.S. Robotics Limited (United Kingdom)
Megahertz Holding, Inc. (Utah, U.S.A.)
Palm Computing Inc. (California, U.S.A.)
Offer Letter, between Coinstar, Inc. and Galen Smith



 Exhibit 10.3 
 January 2, 2013 
 Dear Galen, 
 It is with great pleasure that Coinstar offers you the position of Chief Financial Officer with the company commencing on April 1, 2013. During the period from January 2, 2013 through
March 31, 2013 you will continue in your current role as SVP, Finance for Redbox. Effective on April 1, 2013, you will assume the title, authority and responsibilities of Chief Financial Officer of Coinstar, Inc. reporting directly to the
Chief Executive Officer. This letter will serve to confirm our understanding of your acceptance of this position. 
 Salary 

Effective April 1, 2013, your compensation will be based on an annualized salary of $400,000, less all required withholding for taxes and social
security. You will be paid bi-weekly (26 times per year). 
 Incentive Plans: 
 You are also eligible to participate in Coinstar’s incentive plans in 2013. As of the effective date of this promotion, your target bonus opportunity will be 60% of your base compensation. The
allocation of your short-term incentive compensation will be guided by the 2013 Executive Incentive Compensation Plan as administered by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Committee”). 

Your total 2013 Long-Term Incentive Plan (LTIP) is also administered by the Committee and the value of the LTIP will be approximately $700,000. The LTIP
will consist of approximately fifty percent (50%) performance based restricted stock, thirty percent (30%) options, and twenty percent (20%) time-based restricted stock. All equity will be subject to the terms of the Company’s
2011 Incentive Plan (“Equity Incentive Plan”) and the respective grant and award agreements. This equity award will be processed with the annual equity grants of other executives in February, 2013. 

Benefits 
 You will continue to be
eligible for your current Coinstar benefits. 
 Galen, if you agree with and accept the terms of this offer of employment, please sign and return
one copy of this letter to our office by January 2, 2013. Congratulations on your promotion, we look forward to an exciting future. 
  

									
	Sincerely,	  		  	Accepted by:	 		 	
					
	 /s/ Paul Davis
	  		  	 /s/ Galen C. Smith
	 	Date	 	 January 2, 2013

	Paul Davis	  		  	Galen C. Smith	 		 	
	Chief Executive Officer
No. 618, Misc.

#### Lehman *v.*Illinois.

Supreme Court of Illinois. Certiorari denied.
LNB Bancorp, Inc.Exhibit to Form 10-K(For the twelve months ended December 31, 2004)Exhibit Number (32(a))CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, ASENACTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002     In connection with the Annual Report of LNB Bancorp, Inc. (the“Corporation”) on Form 10-K for the period endingDecember 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Daniel E. Klimas, President and Chief Executive Officer of theCorporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as enacted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe 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 operations of the Corporation.     /s/ Daniel E. Klimas           Daniel E. Klimas *President and Chief Executive Officer*March 11, 2005
77
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, Sheri Knope, certify that:



I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Luxemburg Bancshares, Inc.;

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

The small business issuers other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a -15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report on such evaluation; and

c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and

The small business issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



Date:May 11, 2005



/s/ Sheri Knope

Sheri Knope

Chief Financial Officer
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (0.9 MB)
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
#### Francis J. Delehanty, Appellant, *v.*Bart Dunn, Respondent.

Reported below, 151 App. Div. 695.

(Submitted February 24, 1913;

decided March 4, 1913.)

Motion for leave to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered June 28, 1912, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and granting a new trial in an action on contract.

The motion was made upon the ground that appellant now desires that the case be returned to the trial court for a retrial of the issues.

*P. Henry Delehanty*for motion.

*Henry N. French*opposed.

Motion granted upon appellant, within twenty days, paying respondent costs of appeal to date; on failure to comply with these terms the appeal is dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion.
September 10, 2015

Mr. Cameron Stotz

1625 Snyder Street

Waukee, IA 50263

Dear Mr. Stotz :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

part 21, subpart H; part 61 and § § 91.103(b)(2), 91.105, 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 91.151,

91.405, 91.407, 91.409, and 91.417 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We received your June 3, 2015, exemption request filed in D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 2605 , but

we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does no t comply with the

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must

send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviat ion A dministration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notif ying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure s34
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Stuart Hewitt, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 58]

—Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Grajales, J.), rendered April 6, 1993, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, under Indictment No. 5154/92, and (2) a judgment of the same court, rendered April 27, 1993, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, under Indictment No. 7572/92, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

At the trial pursuant to Indictment No. 5154/92, it was error to have permitted the People to present expert testimony that the illegal drugs possessed by the defendant were intended for sale *(see, People v Goodwine,*177 AD2d 708). However, based on the testimony concerning the quantity (56 vials), value, and distinctive packaging of the cocaine, and the otherwise overwhelming proof of guilt, we find the error to be harmless *(see, People v Goodwine, supra; People v Nelson,*189 AD2d 828; *People v Herndon,*176 AD2d 817).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either academic, unpreserved for appellate review, or without merit *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10). Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.
From: rwsalley@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:08:23 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 Salley

,