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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:31:41 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,

George Lourigan

Georgetown, TX 78626
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-30-1997
<CASH>                                         492,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               17,067,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,050,000
<INVENTORY>                                 13,560,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            31,771,000
<PP&E>                                       8,094,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,101,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              40,421,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       25,638,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  9,177,000
<COMMON>                                       168,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,046,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                40,421,000
<SALES>                                     68,959,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            68,959,000
<CGS>                                       48,441,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               65,534,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,037,200
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,940,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,083,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    78,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (454,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (454,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1468 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1468

 For the relief of Ilko Vasilev Ivanov, Anelia Marinova Peneva, Marina 
               Ilkova Ivanova, and Julia Ilkova Ivanova.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 26, 2001

    Mr. Kyl introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 For the relief of Ilko Vasilev Ivanov, Anelia Marinova Peneva, Marina 
               Ilkova Ivanova, and Julia Ilkova Ivanova.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

    In the administration of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Ilko Vasilev Ivanov, Anelia Marinova Peneva, 
Marina Ilkova Ivanova, and Julia Ilkova Ivanova shall be held and 
considered to have been lawfully admitted to the United States for 
permanent residence as of the date of the enactment of this Act upon 
payment of the required visa fees.

SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.

    Upon the granting of permanent residence to Ilko Vasilev Ivanov, 
Anelia Marinova Peneva, Marina Ilkova Ivanova, and Julia Ilkova Ivanova 
as provided in this Act, the Secretary of State shall instruct the 
proper officer to reduce by the appropriate number during the current 
fiscal year the total number of immigrant visas available to natives of 
the country of the aliens' birth under subsection (a) of section 203 of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153).
                                 <all>
```
September 1, 2016

Mr. Stephen Gowdy Gowdy Brothers Aerospace, LLC Consultant for Kilner Aerial, LLC 8170 Old Carriage Court North Shakopee, MN 55379

Re: FAA-2016-3366

Dear Mr. Gowdy:

This letter is to provide notification that we have reviewed your petition for exemption, and
have determined that we will con tinue to process your petition.

As referenced in the June 22, 2016, letter posted to your docket at www.regulations.gov , we are reviewing pending Section 333 petitions to determine if the recently-issued regulation, Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 107 ( www.faa.gov/uas ) will satisfy your request. We have determined that your request requires further regulatory relief (T ier 3), and we will continue working on your petition for exemption.

We have found that your petition, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, we will publish a summary of your petition in the Federa l Register for public comments, if we have not done so already.

We will advise you of the agency’s final deci sion on your petition as s oon as possible. If you have any questions regarding your petition, please contact me at 333exemptions@faa.gov

.

Sincerely,
/s/
Brenda Robeson Program Analyst
Amendment to Employment Agreement between the Registrant and Sunil Bhonsle



 Exhibit 10.2 
 AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 AMENDMENT
AGREEMENT dated this 31st day of December, 2012 between
Titan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) and Sunil Bhonsle (“Executive”). 
 WHEREAS, the Company and
Executive are parties to an employment agreement dated May 16, 2009 (as amended by agreements dated February 17, 2010, June 15, 2010, December 27, 2010 and December 30, 2011, the “Agreement”); and

 WHEREAS, the compensation provision of the Agreement will expire by its terms on December 31, 2012 and the Company and
Executive wish to amend and extend the Agreement to provide for uninterrupted service by the Executive 
 NOW, THEREFORE, for
and in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows. Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement. 

1. Effective Date. The effective date of this Amendment Agreement is January 1, 2013. 

2. Trigger Date. The term Trigger Date as used in the Agreement shall be changed to December 31, 2013. 

3. Miscellaneous. Except as expressly amended by this Amendment Agreement, the Agreement remains in full force and effect.

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment Agreement to be duly executed as of the day and year first
above written. 
  

			
	TITAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Marc Rubin

		 	Name: Marc Rubin
		 	Title: Executive Chairman

  

	
	EXECUTIVE
	
	 /s/ Sunil Bhonsle

	        Name: Sunil Bhonsle
EXHIBIT 32.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Lester G. Manalo, certify, 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,
the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Adtomize Inc. for the fiscal year ended March
31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual
Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Adtomize Inc.


Date June 29, 2009                    By: /s/ Lester G. Manalo
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Lester G. Manalo, President, Treasurer
                                          and Director Principal Executive and
                                          Financial Officer

This certification accompanies the Annual Report on Form 10-K pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed for
purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the
liability of that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be
incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that Adtomize Inc. specifically incorporates
it by reference.
September 17, 1962

No. 67062.

protest 61/24425(A).

#### Auburn Importing Corp. *v.*United States,

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
Memorandum

To: Docket ATBCB 2010-0004, Transportation Vehicles

From: Melissa Anderson

Re: Ex Parte Communication with Lane Transit District and Douglas Cross Transportation Consulting

Date: April 25, 2012

On April 20, 2012, representatives of the Access Board met with Ms. Terry Parker, Accessible Service Manager, 

Lane Transit, Springfield, OR and Douglas J. Cross, Douglas J. Cross Transportation Consulting, Oakland, CA. The 

meeting took place at the Access Board offices in Washington, DC from 2:00 to 3:30 p.m. Ms. Parker and Mr. 

Cross requested the meeting to discuss provisions in the proposed rule that have raised concerns that were 

unknown to them at the time their initial comments were submitted to Docket ATBCB 2010-0004. The Access 

Board was represented in the meeting by the following persons: David Capozzi, Executive Director; Christopher 

Hart, Public Board Member; Marsha Mazz, Director, Office of Technical and Information Services; James Raggio, 

General Counsel; Jim Pecht, Accessibility Specialist; Scott Windley, Accessibility Specialist; and Melissa Anderson, 

Transportation Engineer. 

Mr. Cross and Ms. Parker raised concerns regarding the Board’s proposal to revise its ADA Accessibility Guidelines 

for Transportation Vehicles so that maximum allowed ramp slope on buses would be 1:6 (Proposed 36 CFR Parts 

1192, T303.8) instead of the currently permitted 1:4 (36 CFR Parts 1192, 1192.23(c)(5)). They noted that some 

bus manufacturers supply buses with ramps that meet the proposed 1:6 requirement. Ms. Parker observed that 

some Lane Transit District customers have had difficulty negotiating the ramp. Mr. Cross had similar observations 

which he outlined in a letter to Mr. Capozzi. Ms. Parker provided the photographs to illustrate her concerns. The 

letter and photographs have been added to the Docket.

Ms. Parker and Mr. Cross raised the following concerns regarding buses with ramps with a 1:6 maximum slope: 

1. The top portion of the ramp, which is installed at a fixed slope inside the vehicle, creates a grade break 

within the length of the ramp especially when the bus is in a kneeled position. In their experience, buses 

with ramps with 1:4 maximum slopes did not include a grade break within the ramp run. They expressed 

concern that the added grade break makes bus ramps significantly less usable by individuals using 

wheelchairs.

2. Locating a portion of the ramp within the interior of bus at the doorway creates a discontinuity or ledge 

onto which a wheelchair’s wheels may accidentally track before dropping abruptly onto the lower surface 

of the ramp.

3. Available space at the top of the ramp is reduced when a portion of the ramp is located in the interior of 

the bus. This lack of space reduces the ability of a person using a wheelchair to keep all four wheels on 

the same plane and reduces the stability of the wheelchair, particularly as it is maneuvered onto or off the 

ramp.

At the conclusion of the meeting, staff thanked the representatives for their comments. Ms. Parker and Mr. Cross 

have submitted additional comments to the Docket.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 18 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 18

     Expressing disapproval by the House of Representatives of the 
 totalization agreement between the United States and Mexico signed by 
  the Commissioner of Social Security and the Director General of the 
          Mexican Social Security Institute on June 29, 2004.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2007

  Mr. Goode (for himself, Mr. Culberson, Mr. Jones of North Carolina, 
    Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Feeney, and Mr. Deal of Georgia) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                           on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
     Expressing disapproval by the House of Representatives of the 
 totalization agreement between the United States and Mexico signed by 
  the Commissioner of Social Security and the Director General of the 
          Mexican Social Security Institute on June 29, 2004.

Whereas a totalization agreement between the United States and Mexico was signed 
        by the Commissioner of Social Security and the Director General of the 
        Mexican Social Security Institute on June 29, 2004;
Whereas a totalization agreement between the United States and Mexico negatively 
        impacts the Social Security system of the United States and puts 
        America's seniors at risk; and
Whereas upon transmittal of such agreement to the Congress, under section 
        233(e)(2) of the Social Security Act, such agreement is subject to 
        disapproval by either House of the Congress: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives, pursuant to section 
233(e)(2) of the Social Security Act, hereby disapproves the 
totalization agreement establishing totalization arrangements between 
the social security system established by title II of such Act and the 
social security system of Mexico, signed by the Commissioner of Social 
Security and the Director General, Mexican Social Security Institute, 
on June 29, 2004.
                                 <all>
```
From: mjsnell85@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:47:55 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

As a physician, 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,

Mark Snell

Bonney Lake, WA 98391
(R.D. 11431)

#### Commodity Service Corporation *v.*United States

(Decided December 18, 1967)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for tbe plaintiff!.

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

DoNloN, Judge:'

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

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, as follows:

(1) That the merchandise covered by the above-entitled appeal for reappraisement consists of canned corned beef in 4 lb. tins, packed 6 tins per carton, exported from Argentina on or about October 9,1963; that the said merchandise was entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
From: dlbatie5@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:46:12 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 Batie

Winterville, NC 28590
No. P68/450.

protests 60/1500 and 59/20001 (New York).

#### Lantoy Sales Co., Inc., and Langfelder, Homma & Carroll, Inc. *v.*United States,

Bao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel, that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of rubber bulb horns similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Sherwin*International, *Inc.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 466, Abstract 69382), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MIGUEL AVILA; BARBARA AVILA, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

 v. 

SPOKANE SCHOOL DISTRICT 81, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 18-35148 

D.C. Nos. 2:10-cv-00408-EFS 

2:11-cv-00165-EFS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Edward F. Shea, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 27, 2018**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Miguel Avila and Barbara Avila, parents of a student in Spokane School 

District 81, appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action 

alleging violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). The Avilas’ request for oral 

argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.

FILED

DEC 5 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-35148 

the basis of the applicable statute of limitations. Butler v. Nat’l Cmty. 

Renaissance, 766 F.3d 1191, 1194 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the Avilas’ claims that defendant failed 

to identify their child’s disability or assess their child for autism in 2006 and 2007 

because the Avilas filed their request for a due process hearing after the applicable 

statute of limitations had run, and the Avilas did not establish that an exception to 

the statute of limitations applied. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(C)-(D) (setting forth 

a two-year limitations period for IDEA claims and exceptions to the statute of 

limitations); Avila v. Spokane Sch. Dist. 81, 852 F.3d 936, 937 (9th Cir. 2017) 

(holding that the discovery rule applies to IDEA claims and the statute of 

limitations begins to run when the parent “knew or should have known about the 

alleged action that forms the basis of the complaint”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We reject as meritless the Avilas’ contentions regarding the harmless error 

doctrine and that the district court improperly narrowed the scope of review.

AFFIRMED.