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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:06:06 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,

Jennifer Brackeen

Gainesville, FL 32606
From: daver50@buckeye-express.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:09:07 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 Fischer

Toledo, OH 43605
From: featherfox@dc.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:51:08 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,

Audrey Gregory

Palm Desert, CA 92211
No. 25.

#### Presser *v.*United States,

*ante,*p. 71. Petition for rehearing denied.

Mr. Justice Goldberg took no part in the consideration or decision of this application.
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
 PREMIER EXHIBITIONS, INC. 
 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR 

RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AWARD AGREEMENT 
 (2009 Equity Incentive Plan) 
 Premier Exhibitions, Inc. (the “Company”),
pursuant to its 2009 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), hereby grants to the non-employee director listed below (the “Participant”), the number of units (the “Units”) set forth below (the “Award”). The Award
is subject to the terms and conditions of this Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement (this “Agreement”) and the Plan, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. Any capitalized term used but not
otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to such term in the Plan. 
  

			
	Participant:	  	[                            
]
		
	 Number of Units

awarded:
	  	[                            
]
		
	Date of grant:	  	January 1, 2013
		
	Period of Restriction:	  	The Period of Restriction shall end on January 1, 2014, or such earlier date as provided in the Plan (the “Vesting Date”), provided that the Participant continuously
serves on the Board from the date of grant until the Vesting Date. Notwithstanding the above, the Units shall immediately vest on a pro-rata basis (proportionally to the number of days that the Participant served on the Company’s Board during
the 2013 calendar year) upon the Participant’s resignation or other termination from the Board prior to the Vesting Date. Any Units that do not vest shall be forfeited.
		
	Payment:	  	Once vested, the Units shall be paid to the Participant, in the form of one Share per vested Unit, within 20 days after becoming vested.

 By signing below, the Participant acknowledges that he shall bear the risk of loss with respect to the Shares underlying
the Units. The Participant further acknowledges receipt of, and understands and agrees to the terms and conditions of, this Agreement and the Plan. As of the date of grant of the Units, the Participant accepts this Award and acknowledges that this
Agreement and the Plan set forth the entire understanding between the Participant and the Company regarding the Award and supersede all prior oral and written agreements relating thereto. This Agreement can be executed in two counterparts, each of
which shall be deemed an original, but both of which together shall constitute one and the same document. 
  

							
	PREMIER EXHIBITIONS, INC.	 		 	Participant: [                    ]
				
	By:	 	  
	 		 	  

	Name:	 	  
	 		 	
	Title:	 	  
	 		 	Date:
No. P66/141. —

#### Castelazo & Associates and Marshall Mc Murray Co. *v.*United States, protest 58/10175 (Los Angeles).

Nao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of coimsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of brass pole ends similar in all material respects to those the subject of *J. C. DeJong & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(52 CCPA 26, C.A.D. 852), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Consent to Repayment of Subordinated Debt



 Exhibit 10.3 
 CONSENT TO REPAYMENT OF SUBORDINATED DEBT 
 This Consent to Repayment of
Subordinated Debt (this “Agreement”) is entered into as of December 28, 2012, among Ashutosh Roy (“Creditor”), Comerica Bank (“Bank”) and eGAIN CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, formerly
known as eGain Communications Corporation (“Borrower”). 
 RECITALS 

WHEREAS, Borrower is indebted to Creditor under certain documents, instruments and agreements executed in connection with the financing
arrangements among Creditor and Borrower. 
 WHEREAS, Creditor executed a Subordination Agreement in favor of Bank dated as of
June 27, 2011 (the “Subordination Agreement”). 
 WHEREAS, Borrower desires to make a one-time payment to
Creditor on or about December 31, 2012, in the amount of $3,000,000.00 (the “Subordinated Debt Payment”). 

WHEREAS, the Subordinated Debt Payment, without the prior written consent of Bank, would violate the Subordination Agreement. 

WHEREAS, Creditor and Borrower requested that Bank consent to the Subordinated Debt Payment. 

NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 
 1. Bank hereby consents to the Subordinated Debt Payment. 
 2. Creditor
acknowledges (a) the execution, delivery and performance by Borrower of that certain Third Amendment to Loan and Security Agreement dated on or about December 28, 2012, and (b) that the Subordination Agreement remains in full force
and effect. 
 3. Creditor affirms its obligations under the Subordination Agreement. 

4. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall
constitute one instrument. 
 5. Creditor acknowledges that Bank is relying on this Agreement in connection with the funding of
its loans to Borrower. 
 [Signatures on following pages] 







 
	
	 “Creditor”
  

ASHUTOSH ROY

	
	/s/ Ashutosh Roy
	Signature of Ashutosh Roy


  
  
  

[Creditor Signature Page to Consent to Repayment of Subordinated Debt] 







 
			
	 “Bank”
  

COMERICA BANK

		
	By:	 	/s/ Jeff Lee
		
	Name: 	 	Jeff Lee
		
	Title:	 	Vice President


  
  
  

[Bank Signature Page to Consent to Repayment of Subordinated Debt] 







 
			
	 “Borrower”
  

eGAIN CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation formerly known as eGain Communications Corporation

		
	By:	 	/s/ Eric Smit
		
	Name: 	 	Eric Smit
		
	Title:	 	C.F.O.


  
  
  

[Borrower Signature Page to Consent to Repayment of Subordinated Debt]
| [Missing                Graphic Reference] |
|--------------------------------------------|

|     **Filed                Pursuant To Rule 433, Registration No. 333-124310**  **$1,000,000,000**  **CATERPILLAR                FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION**   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| **For                the Period: 6/30/2006 to 7/10/2006** |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|
| **Coupon**                                                | **Interest** | **Maturity** | **Callable** | **Survivor's****Option** | **Price****1** | **Yield****2** | **Moody's** | **S&P** | **CUSIP** |
| 5.400%                                                    | Semi-Annual(†††) | 7/15/09 | NO | YES§  | 100.00 | 5.400% | A2 | A | 14911Q3U3 |
| 5.600%                                                    | Monthly(†) | 7/15/11 | 7/15/08*  | YES§  | 100.00 | 5.666% | A2 | A | 14911Q3V1 |
| 6.100%                                                    | Semi-Annual(†††) | 7/15/16 | 7/15/08***  | YES§  | 100.00 | 6.100% | A2 | A | 14911Q3W9 |
| 6.300%                                                    | Semi-Annual(†††) | 7/15/21 | 7/15/09***  | YES§  | 100.00 | 6.300% | A2 | A | 14911Q3X7 |

*All      offerings are subject to prior sale.*
(R.D. 11416)

#### Parsons *&*Whittemore, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided December 5, 1967)

*Sharp, Solter & Hutchison*for tbe plaintiff.

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

Rao, Chief Judge:

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

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subj ect to the approval of the Court:

1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, ,et seq.).

2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular purposes.

4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Ros. 2 and 3.

5. That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. §162), to be as indicated in said *788schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### Chauncey B. Hodges, Respondent, v. Adolphe Raux, Appellant.

— Judgment and order of the County Court of Oneida county affirmed, with costs.
No. P66/136. —

#### Baron Tube Company and W. R. Zanes & Company *v.*United States, protest 279562-K (Galveston).

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of seamless steel oil well casing, not advanced beyond hammering, rolling, or casting, the same in all material respects as that the subject of *United Supply & Mfg. Co., The Crispin Company*v. *United States*(37 Cust. Ct. 95, C.D. 1804), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
H. Res. 203

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

March 1, 2007.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 

the bill (H.R. 800) to amend the National Labor Relations 

Act to establish an efficient system to enable employees to 

form, join, or assist labor organizations, to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes. The first reading of 

the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 

consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under 

clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined 

to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 

the Committee on Education and Labor. After general debate 

the bill shall be considered for amendment under the fiveminute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original 

bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule 
2

•HRES 203 EH 

the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 

the Committee on Education and Labor now printed in the 

bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 

shall be considered as read. Notwithstanding clause 11 of 

rule XVIII, no amendment to the committee amendment in 

the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 

this resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in 

the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a 

Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, 

shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 

divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 

shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 

to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 

the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 

amendments are waived except those arising under clause 10 

of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 

amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to 

the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. 

Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on 

any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to 

the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 

substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
3

•HRES 203 EH 

without intervening motion except one motion to recommit 

with or without instructions. 

Attest:

Clerk.
# 

# CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

POWERNOTES (SM)

With Maturities of 9 months or more from Date of Issue

Registration No.  333-97047

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (3)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO.  353                                                                   Trade Date:  10/27/03

(To Prospectus Supplement dated August 15, 2002 &

  Prospectus dated August  8,2002)                                                                Issue Date:   10/30/03

The Date of this Pricing SupplementOctober 27, 2003

SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION OR REPAYMENT

 CUSIP                                                                                                                                   Date and terms of redemption or

     or       Stated                                                                   Interest                                       repayment (includingany

Common  Interest                      Price to  Discounts &        Payment     Survivors                  applicable regular or special

  Code      Rate (1)   Maturity  Public (2) Commissions       Frequency       Option  Yes/No     record dates)

14911QQS3   4.05%         04/15/10           100%              1.05%                  Monthly                      YES          NO                

                       

                          

Principal                                                                                 1st Payment             Day         

Amount                  Proceeds                  Dealer                           Date                   Count

$1,130,000.00         $1,118,135.00         ABN AMRO Inc.        11/15/03                               30/360    

Original Issue DiscountNote:                                                                          Total Amount of OID:

____  Yes                X   No                                                                                  N/A

The interest rates on the PowerNotes (SM) may be changed by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation from time to time, but any such change will not affect the interest rate on any PowerNotes (SM) offered prior to the effective date of the change.  Prior to the date of this Pricing Supplement, $314.861 mm principal amount of the PowerNotes (SM) were sold at interest rates then in effect.  Subsequent offerings of PowerNotes (SM) will be made under the Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated August 8,2002.

Expressed as a percentage of aggregate principal amount.  Actual Price to Public may be less, and will be determined by prevailing market prices at the time of purchase as set forth in the confirmation sheet.
No. 59700.

#### Cerruti & Cominelli *v.*United States,

protests 255649-K and 258227-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended May 25, 1955, effective July 1, 1955, the protests were dismissed for lack of prosecution.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 128522 & (24) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. MICHAEL RUTHER FORD and MAY Stephen J. Markman, RUTHERFORD, Justices Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v SC: 128522 COA: 260391 Berrien CC: 04-003153-NI LAURENT LEDUC, TRANSPORT LAURENT LEDUC, INC., and DISTRIBUTION MARCEL DION, INC., Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to ap peal the March 11, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented sh ould be reviewed by this Cour t. The motion to admit pro hac vice is GRANTED.

p1024 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2005

Clerk