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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:46:23 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,

Stephen Myking

Naples, FL 34102
November 1, 1965

No. 69611.

Appeal 5194.

#### Hilo Rice Mill Co., Ltd., and American Customs Brokerage Company et al. v. United States.

C.D. 2471 reversed July 1, 1965. C.A.D. 866.
From: jpegram@bobjonesacademy.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:10:30 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,

Joanie Pegram

Taylors, SC 29687
From: DAN BYNUM

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Women"s Rights

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 8:03:22 PM

I support a woman's right to preventive care and contraception.

Unfortunately efforts are being taken to expand religious refusal.

Religious refusal goes against seperation of church and state. We should not

allow religious zealots to refuse care for women.

Dan
No. 65126.

#### The J. D. Richardson Company *v.*United States,

protest 273602-K (Detroit).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *The Best Foods, Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 163, C.A.D. 751), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7649
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PATRICK LAWSON, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR89-362-PN, CA-95-2518-S) Submitted: January 23, 1996 Decided: February 9, 1996 Before HALL and HA MILTON, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrick Lawson, Appellant Pro Se. Stuart A. Berman, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. See United States v. Lawson , Nos. CR-89-362-PN; CA-95-2518-S (D. Md. Aug. 30,1995). We affirm the decision of the district court because Appellant's claim is procedurally barred. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
1 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-60278

Summary Calendar

 

FRED J. MAGEE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOHN J. CALLAHAN, 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:96cv195PG

- - - - - - - - - -

October 7, 1997

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Fred J. Magee appeals the district court’s judgment for the

Commissioner in his action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for

review of the decision of the administrative law judge (“ALJ”)

denying him disability and disability insurance benefits and

Supplemental Security Income. 

Magee contends that the district court erred in denying his

motion to remand the case to the Commissioner for consideration of
“new” evidence. Although the evidence submitted by Magee is “new,”

it is not “material” in that it does not relate to the time period

for which he is seeking benefits. See Ripley v. Chater, 67 F.3d

552, 555 & n.14 (5th Cir. 1995). Magee also contends that the ALJ

erred in rejecting his subjective complaints of disabling pain.

The ALJ’s assessment of those complaints, however, was supported by

substantial evidence. See Anthony v. Sullivan, 954 F.2d 289, 292

(5th Cir. 1992); Ripley, 67 F.3d at 556. The record lacks clinical

and laboratory findings that support Magee’s assertions that his

pain is in fact disabling. See Selders v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 614,

618-19 (5th Cir. 1990).

AFFIRMED.
#### Susan M. Hall, Respondent, v. Frank H. Oakleaf, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
From: jjenkinsclan2@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:08:56 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Elaine Jenkins

Nampa, ID 83651
No. 140.

#### Willner *v.*Committee on Character and Fitness, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Judicial Department.

*Louis J. Lefkowitz,*Attorney General of New York, on the motion.

*Henry Waldman*for petitioner, in opposition.

Certiorari, 370 U. S. 934, to the Court of Appeals of New York. The motion of the respondent to dismiss the writ of certiorari is denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 JUL-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                      JAN-1-2000
<CASH>                                            14,275
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     30,917
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                       220,272
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  270,800
<PP&E>                                            94,607
<DEPRECIATION>                                    0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    415,617
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             146,422
<BONDS>                                           167,697
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                          122
<OTHER-SE>                                        81,787
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      415,617
<SALES>                                           668,246
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  668,246
<CGS>                                             537,133
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     537,133
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                9,438
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   6,202
<INCOME-TAX>                                      2,481
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               3,721
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   206
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                      3,927
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.34


</TABLE>
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsGuide for Oxygen Hazards Analyses on Components and SystemsBecause most materials, including metals, will burn in an oxygen-enriched environment, hazards are always present when using oxygen. Most materials will ignite at lower temperatures in an oxygen-enriched environment than in air, and once ignited, combustion rates are greater in the oxygen-enriched environment. Many metals burn violently in an oxygen-enriched environment when ignited. Lubricants, tapes, gaskets, fuels, and solvents can increase the possibility of ignition in oxygen systems. However, these hazards do not preclude the use of oxygen. Oxygen may be safely used if all the materials in a system are not flammable in the end-use environment or if ignition sources are identified and controlled. These ignition and combustion hazards necessitate a proper oxygen hazards analysis before introducing a material or component into oxygen service. The objective of this test plan is to describe the White Sands Test Facility oxygen hazards analysis to be performed on components and systems before oxygen is introduced and is recommended before implementing the oxygen component qualification procedure. The plan describes the NASA Johnson Space Center White Sands Test Facility method consistent with the ASTM documents for analyzing the hazards of components and systems exposed to an oxygen-enriched environment. The oxygen hazards analysis is a useful tool for oxygen-system designers, system engineers, and facility managers. Problem areas can be pinpointed before oxygen is introduced into the system, preventing damage to hardware and possible injury or loss of life.Document ID19970001787Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsStoltzfus, Joel M.*(NASA Houston, TX United States)*Dees, Jesse*(Lockheed Martin Engineering and Science Services Las Cruces, NM United States)*Poe, Robert F.*(Lockheed Martin Engineering and Science Services Las Cruces, NM United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 1996Subject CategoryInorganic And Physical ChemistryReport/Patent NumberS-819NASA-TM-104823NAS 1.15:104823Accession Number97N11558Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970001787.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Amendment No. 1 to Christopher Poulton Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT TO 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is entered into between Doral Financial Corporation, a
Puerto Rico corporation (the “Company”), and Christopher Poulton (the “Executive”) under the following circumstances. 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive entered into an Employment Agreement on June 1, 2007 (the “Employment Agreement”); and 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive have agreed to amend certain terms of the Employment Agreement by entering into this
Amendment. 
 NOW THEREFORE, the Executive agrees with the Company, in consideration for good and valuable consideration,
the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged and accepted, to amend the Employment Agreement as follows, effective as of the date this Amendment is executed as written below: 

1. Section 5(a)(ii) of the Employment Agreement is amended to read as follows: 

(ii) an amount equal to two (2) times his compensation (salary and bonus) during the preceding year (the “Severance
Payment”), and if such termination occurs in the first year of employment, the Severance Payment shall be $1,280,000.00 dollars, with such Severance Payment being made within two and one-half months after the Date of Termination, and
being payable only if the Executive executes the Release within the 60-day period following the Date of Termination; 
 2.
Section 6(b)(ii) of the Employment Agreement is amended to read as follows: 
 (ii) payment of the Severance Payment
provided in Section 5(a)(ii) above, with such Severance Payment being made within two and one-half months after the Date of Termination, and being payable only if the Executive executes the Release within the 60-day period following the Date of
Termination; 
 3. Except as is provided in this Amendment, the Employment Agreement, as amended, shall remain unchanged and
continue in full force and effect. 
 4. This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with its express terms,
and otherwise in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, without reference to principles of conflict of laws. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of this 26th day of December, 2012. 

 

			
	DORAL FINANCIAL CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Enrique R. Ubarri

	Name:	 	 Enrique R. Ubarri

	Title:	 	 Executive Vice President

	
	CHRISTOPHER POULTON
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Christopher Poulton
Before the Third Division,

January 30, 1961

No. 65115.

#### Howard Berg and Frank P. Dow Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/25667 (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of decorative after-dinner cups and saucers the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. *The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. a/c United China & Glass Company*(47 C.C.P.A. 1, C.A.D. 719), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained
From: hughm.reynolds@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:11:34 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).

Contraceptives and sterilization are personal choices and the government has no business forcing

insurance companies to pay for these procedures. Health care cannot infringe on our riights of

conscience force us to pickup costs for these procedures and appliances when we consider such things

as imoral or unethical.

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,

Hugh and Mary Reynolds

San Jose, CA 95124
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 182 (Thursday, September 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65182-65183]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20421]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose

[[Page 65183]]

confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material, and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a 
clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Investigator Initiated 
Program Project Applications (P01 Clinical Trial Not Allowed).
    Date: October 27, 2023.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G13A, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Mairi Noverr, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activitie, 
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National 
Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G13A, Rockville, MD 
20852, (240) 747-7530, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#187579716a713676776e7d6a6a58767170367f776e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6e030f071c07400001180b1c1c2e00070640090118">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 15, 2023.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-20421 Filed 9-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>