alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: dub425@ca.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:32:50 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Lisa McIntosh

Sylmar, CA 91342
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 10e


                             AMERITECH CORPORATION

               NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS' TRAVEL ACCIDENT INSURANCE
               -------------------------------------------------


Limit of Coverage:      $1,000,000 ($10,500,000 aggregate per occurrence)

Premium:                $53,000 (Three year)

Term:                   Three years

Renewal Date:           June 9, 1999

Policyholder:           Ameritech Corporation

Provided by:            Hartford Life Insurance Company

Policy No.:             ETB-107130


Coverage is of the broadest, all-risk Business Travel Insurance type -- 24 hours
a day while on a covered trip. Coverage starts when the Directors leave their
home or place of employment and continues until their return. It covers almost
all forms of air travel plus travel on railroads, ships, buses, subways, taxis,
private and rented cars. It is not restricted to conveyance accidents but
includes a wide variety of accidents that may occur -- even accidents resulting
from personal or recreational activities engaged in during a covered trip.

The policy provides for payment of up to $1,000,000 per Director for accidental
death and dismemberment. An aggregate limit of $10,500,000 applies per any one
accident. Coverage includes travel while the insured is on a trip, which
includes the purpose of furthering the business of the policyholder except in an
aircraft owned or leased by Ameritech Corporation. Coverage is not provided when
the Director operates, is learning to operate, or is serving as a crewmember of
a conveyance at the time of accident.

Directors may designate a beneficiary, or benefits may be assigned in accordance
with the Payment of Claims provision. Otherwise, insurance under this policy is
not assignable.

Premium is charged as a corporate expense.
Exhibit 11

                             WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC.
                       COMPUTATION RE: EARNINGS PER SHARE
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                            Three Months Ended                   Nine Months Ended
                                                               September 30,                        September 30,
                                                           1999               2000               1999            2000


<S>                                                     <C>               <C>                    <C>           <C>
Net income                                              $ 2,955           $   1,730              $ 8,871       $5,994
                                                        =======           =========              =======       ======

Weighted average number of common shares
  issued and outstanding - Basic                         13,854              13,633               13,707       13,778

Common stock equivalents
  Options for common stock                                  349                 369                  356          438
                                                         --------            --------            -------      ------

Weighted average common stock equivalents                14,203              14,002               14,063       14,216
Less treasury shares to be repurchased                       -                 (187)                   -         (217)
                                                       ------------         --------             -------      -------

Weighted average shares outstanding - Diluted            14,203              13,815               14,063       13,999

Basic earnings per share                                  $0.21               $0.13                $0.65        $0.44
                                                          =====               =====              =======       ======

Diluted earnings per share                                $0.21               $0.13                $0.63        $0.43
                                                          =====               =====              =======       ======
</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, LLC, Relator

Appellate case number: 01-17-00944-CV

Trial court case number: 2017-73644

Trial court: 333rd District Court of Harris County

This Court’s December 21, 2017 Order had requested a response to the mandamus

petition filed by the relator, Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, LLC. Relator seeks to 

compel the respondent district judge to vacate the order, signed on November 27, 2017, 

granting, in part, relator’s motion to compel arbitration, but limiting it before a single 

arbitrator rather than a panel of three arbitrators. Real party in interest Markall Inc. filed 

a response and relator filed a reply. This Court’s Order had also denied relator’s motion 

for emergency relief seeking a stay of the November 27, 2017 order, pending disposition 

of this petition, because RPI Markall’s response stated, among other things, that “[n]o 

administrative conference ha[d] been scheduled.”

On January 23, 2018, relator filed a second motion for emergency relief seeking a 

stay of the November 27, 2017 order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(a). Relator claims that a 

stay is now needed before February 2, 2018, because after the administrative conference 

took place on January 16, 2018, the AAA sent a list of arbitrators to the parties on 

January 22, 2018, and the parties have to submit their strikes and ranks to AAA by 

February 5, 2018, at which time AAA will select a single arbitrator pursuant to the order.

RPI Markall filed a response on January 24, 2018, contending that the second 

motion should be denied because, after the February 5, 2018 deadline, “[i]t will most 

likely take another couple of weeks for the AAA to appoint and confirm the arbitrator.” 

Markall contends that the arbitration hearing date “will likely be several months away in 

light of the 120-day window for a final decision per the parties’ arbitration agreement.” 

On January 26, 2018, relator filed a reply in support of its motion.
Accordingly, because the AAA’s selection of a single arbitrator may render this 

petition moot, the Court GRANTS relator’s second motion for emergency relief, and 

ORDERS that the respondent’s November 27, 2017 order is stayed, pending this Court’s 

disposition of the petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b). This stay is effective until the 

petition is decided or this Court lifts the stay, and any party may move for 

reconsideration. See id. 52.10(c).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: January 30, 2018
From: end.abortion@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:47:13 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,

jeannie seanor

El Cajon, CA 92020
No. P66/164. —

#### Durst Industries, Inc. *v.*United States, protest 65/15440 (New York).

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of rotary lawn sprinklers or metal parts thereof, dedicated for use therewith, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *The Durst Mfg. Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(50 CCPA 56, C.A.D. 820), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

07/17

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Jul 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.90 N 76.65 W Meters AGL
From: larryfoe@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:03:58 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,

Larry Foe

Phoenix, AZ 85083
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of First Robinson
Financial Corporation (the "Company") for the quarterly period ending June 30,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), we, Rick L. Catt, Chief Executive Officer and Jamie E.
McReynolds, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or another
document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of the written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to First Robinson Financial
Corporation and will be retained by First Robinson Financial Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



By:  /s/ Rick L. Catt                         By: /s/ Jamie E. McReynolds
---------------------                         ---------------------------
Name:  Rick L. Catt                           Name:  Jamie E. McReynolds
Chief Executive Officer                       Chief Financial Officer
August 13, 2003                               August 13, 2003











                                       28
From: apsprecher@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:07:32 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,

Christine Sprecher

Galena, OH 43021
From: lsncompton@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:46:36 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,

Laura Compton

Belleville, IL 62223
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1513 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                    September 27, 2008.
    Resolved, That a revised edition of the Rules and Manual of the House of 
Representatives for the One Hundred Eleventh Congress be printed as a House 
document, and that three thousand additional copies shall be printed and bound 
for the use of the House of Representatives, of which nine hundred copies shall 
be bound in leather with thumb index and delivered as may be directed by the 
Parliamentarian of the House.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
No. 240.

#### Maximov, Trustee, *v.*United States.

*D. Nelson Adams*and *John A. Reed*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Cox*for the United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted.
No. 64492.

#### Teigh, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 59/33675 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fiber or hemp articles similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 63552, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
September 18, 1962

No. 67063.

Appeal 5111.

#### United States *v.*Excelsior Accordions, Inc.

Appeal dismissed on motion July 18, 1962.
EXHIBIT 32.02



Certifying Statement of the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act





In connection with the Annual Report of Gold Star Tutoring Services, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert M. Kline, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Gold Star Tutoring Services, Inc. and will be retained by Gold Star Tutoring Services, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.







March 25, 2009

/s/Robert M. Kline__________________

Robert M. Kline, Treasurer

Chief Financial Officer

Principal Accounting and Financial Officer