alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OFFICE OF THE AITORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS % 

AUSTIN 

-c.Ilrsn( 

-- 

Honorable Rouer P. Ralney, Realdent 

The Unltarsity of Texas 

Austin, Texas 

Eear Sir8 opinion No. o-2962 

Re: Ume of umxponded balance 

in total salaries l pprcpr ia te4 l 

to supplement itea appropriated 

for purchase of equipmeat. 

Your letter of Deoeuber 6, 19-M, requestr the opinion of this mtwnt 

upon the question vhethr an tutexpended balaaoo of $6.600.00 la the total 

appropriation for salaries uade by the Forty-sixth Legislature to the Unitersity of Texas, Medioal Bmauoh, for the ffsoaLyeu 1939-1880, vaa 

available for use during that fisoal year to supplement the $12+00~~ 

itea provided for the fiscal pm? 1939-1940 fo% *Clido and lrb&oy 

for cencu rerearch. . .~.ealarie8. operating eepeaees. and equiWeat, aad 

expended for additional eqnlpaant for the oamer allnio end laboaabow. 

The fixnotion of an approprirrtioa ie to met apart a eutdn qm oi noaey to 

..~bo.expe&ea .for ;. outah purpore. /.:. .a .a& :a~c.,.of.:~a~JPUIO*ltti:;;-:-;’ 

umeyt apprcpriated for one parpow may not be upeaded for amthe? .oad 

different purpose. Vs flnd no sathorlty ooaferred a-pea the Unirurdty apt 

Terae to expend ncneye appropriated for ssluiu to myplmsnt or WgBWt 

the aaouut appropriated for nuppliss or equipaent. ft is true that authority 

is given to supplomeat ra3artes under eortaia olrcumtancea, vith certain 

limita, and from certain fundr: but the authority to supplement Wier is 

not involved in your laquiry, aad we therefore do not dlscum it, for ycW 

letter makes it clear that you wore not confronted vith the question of 

supplermnting asalary,~but with the question of aupplementinp: the auouutappropriated for the purchase of equlpueut and mpplies. 

The fact that the Couptroller oarried the $12,000 item PII one MWt%nt 

upon hii bookn, or the faot that the item 18 listed in the appropriation 

bill. tith the other spsclflo salary items. does not affect the question. I 

You do not ask, and we therefore axprers no opinion upon, the queetion 

whether the $6.600.00 unexpended balance in the total appropriation made 

for salaries to the Medioal Branch of the Onirersity of Texas Vas available 

for uee during the fisoal year 1939-40 to supnleuent a salary paid from 

the 1:12,000.00 iten prorided for EClinlc and 1nboratox’Y for canoar researoh. 

. . t~lariea, operating expenses, and eqnlment.N 

Yours very truly 

ATTOW RTVW, OF TEKM 

RMFS ,ov AX'ROVVD DRC 14, 1940 BY (signed) Richard v. Fairchild. 

(si,laed) &ala C. vc,, 

Assistant 

tTTORREYGVR?VRAL OFTRXAS
REPORT ON
ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE


First
American Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc. (the "Asserting Party"), an
indirect subsidiary of The First American Corporation, is responsible for
assessing compliance as of December 31, 2008, and for the period from January 1,
2008 through December 31, 2008 (the "Reporting Period") with the servicing
criteria set forth in Title 17, Sections 229.1122(d)(l)(iv), (d)(2)(v),
(d)(2)(vi), (d)(2)(vii), (d)(4)(xi), (d)(4)(xii) and (d)(4)(xiii) of the Code of
Federal Regulations applicable to the Asserting Party (the "Applicable
Servicing Criteria"). The servicing activities covered by this report
include all loans for commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which
the Asserting Party served as the commercial tax service provider (the
"Platform").


The
Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing
Criteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the Asserting Party has
complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of
December 31, 2008, and for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform
taken as a whole.


PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation
report on the assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as
of December 31, 2008, and for the Reporting Period.





FIRST
AMERICAN COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC.


/s/ Lucy
A.
Przybyla
 Lucy A.
Przybyla
 President
 February
24, 2009
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 18, 2015

p1215

Order 

Clerk

December 18, 2015

151065

ANDREW SHIRVELL,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v SC: 151065

COA: 316146 

Ingham CC: 12-001089-AA

DEPARTMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent-Appellee, 

and

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,

Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 8, 2015 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
From: kathy3112@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:52:57 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,

Kathleen COLLINS

, 19067-1837
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

          - [Docket No. 23-05]

# AGENCY:

Federal Maritime Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        On September 8, 2023, the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         of September 15, 2023, concerning a third-party complaint filed in Docket No. 23-05. This document incorrectly designated Hapag-Lloyd USA, LLC as a Third-Party Complainant.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                         Amy Strauss, Acting Secretary, (202) 523-5725 or                         *secretary@fmc.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of September 15, 2023, on page 63575:                

1. in the first column remove the document title and replace with the following: Rahal International Inc., Complainant v. Hapag-Lloyd AG, Hapag-Lloyd (America), LLC, and Hapag-Lloyd USA, LLC, Respondents and Hapag-Lloyd AG and Hapag-Lloyd (America), LLC, Third-Party Complainants v. Maher Terminals, LLC, GCT New York LP, and GCT Bayonne LP, Third-Party Respondents; Notice of Filing of Third-Party Complaint

2. in the second column, both times it appears, remove “Hapag-Lloyd AG, Hapag-Lloyd (America), LLC, and Hapag-Lloyd USA, LLC” and replace with the following: Hapag-Lloyd AG and Hapag-Lloyd (America), LLC

3. in the second column, remove the following paragraph: Respondent and Third-Party Complainant Hapag-Lloyd USA, LLC is a United States subsidiary and agent of Hapag-Lloyd AG with its office located in Atlanta, Georgia.

Carl Savoy,

Federal Register Alternate Liaison Officer, Federal Maritime Commission.

[FR Doc. 2023-20642 Filed 9-22-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730-02-P
From: dmmk444@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:04:26 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,

Donna Kahl

Naperville, IL 60563
Before the First Division,

March 29, 1965

No. 69186.

#### Trans-World Shipping Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 64/20143 (New York).

Opinion by

Nichols, J.

Since the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 614, Tariff Act of 1930.
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

VANDANA BHANDARI, *

* No. 11

- 632V

Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran

*

v. * Filed: June 26, 2013

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Stipulation; trivalent influenza (flu) vaccine;

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * acute disseminated encephalomyelitis

* (ADEM)

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

UNPUBLISHED DECISION 1

Clifford J. Shoemaker

, Shoemaker and Associates

, Vienna, VA

, for Petitioner;

Althea W. Davis , U.S. Depar tment of Justice, Washington, DC , for Respondent.

On June 24, 2013

, respondent filed a joint stipulation concerning the petition for

compensation filed by Vandana Bhandari on October 3 , 2011. In her petition, Ms . Bhandari

alleged that the trivalent influenza vaccine , which is contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the

“Table”), 42 C .F.R. §100.3(a), and which she received on October 25 , 2010, caused her to

su stain the first symptom or manifestation of the onset of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis

(“ADEM” ). Ms. Bhandari further alleges that she suffered the residual effects of th ese injuries

for more than six months. Ms. Bhandari represents that there has been no prior award or

settlement of a civil action for damages on her behalf as a result of her condition.

Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner ’s alleged i njuries or any other

injury or her current disabilities

.

Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation, attached hereto as Appendix A.

The undersigned finds said stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the Court in

awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

1 T he E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 2002),

requires that the Court post this decision on its website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the

parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical inf ormation or other

information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 12(d)(4). Any redactions ordered by the special

master will appear in the document posted on the website.2

Damages awa rded in that stipulation include:

A lump sum payment of $ 125 ,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner,

Vandana Bhandari

. T his amount represents compensation for all damages that

would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(a).

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC, Appendix B, the clerk is

directed to enter judgment in cas e 11

- 632V according to this decision and the attached

stipulation. 2

Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Tucker McCarthy , a t (202) 357

- 6 392

.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties can expedite entry of judgment by each par ty filing

a notice renouncing the right to seek review by a United States Court of Federal Claims judge.
# Iris Oifigiúil C NaN/17 F

| | ISSN 1977-107X |
| --- | --- |
| Iris Oifigiúil
  an Aontais Eorpaigh | Eagrán Speisialta (
  1
  ) |
| | |
| An t-eagrán Gaeilge | Faisnéis agus Fógraí | 5817 Feabhra 2015 |

ISSN 1977-107X

Iris Oifigiúil

an Aontais Eorpaigh

Eagrán Speisialta (
  1
  )

1

An t-eagrán Gaeilge

Faisnéis agus Fógraí

5817 Feabhra 2015

---

| | Clár | Leathanach |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Ceartúcháin |
| 2015/C /01 | Ceartúchán ar an bhfógra comórtais oscailte EPSO/AST-SC/03/15, Rúnaithe/Cléirigh (SC1 agus SC2) sna réimsí seo a leanas: 1) Cúnamh riaracháin; 2) Cúnamh airgeadais; 3) Cúnamh rúnaíochta ( Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh C 3 A Eagrán Speisialta Gaeilge, an 8 Eanáir 2015 ) | 1 |

Clár

Leathanach

Ceartúcháin

2015/C /01

Ceartúchán ar an bhfógra comórtais oscailte EPSO/AST-SC/03/15, Rúnaithe/Cléirigh (SC1 agus SC2) sna réimsí seo a leanas: 1) Cúnamh riaracháin; 2) Cúnamh airgeadais; 3) Cúnamh rúnaíochta ( Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh C 3 A Eagrán Speisialta Gaeilge, an 8 Eanáir 2015 )

( Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh C 3 A Eagrán Speisialta Gaeilge, an 8 Eanáir 2015 )

1

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Faoin tagairt C 57 A a foilsíodh ábhar an eagráin seo i dteangacha oifigiúla eile an Aontais Eorpaigh. |

---

(1)   Faoin tagairt C 57 A a foilsíodh ábhar an eagráin seo i dteangacha oifigiúla eile an Aontais Eorpaigh.

1

| GA | |
| --- | --- |

GA

---

Ceartúcháin

| 17.2.2015 | GA | Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh | 1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2015

GA

Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh

1

---

Ceartúchán ar an bhfógra comórtais oscailte EPSO/AST-SC/03/15, Rúnaithe/Cléirigh (SC1 agus SC2) sna réimsí seo a leanas: 1) Cúnamh riaracháin; 2) Cúnamh airgeadais; 3) Cúnamh rúnaíochta

(
  Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh C 3 A Eagrán Speisialta Gaeilge, an 8 Eanáir 2015
  )

Leathanach 2, Roinn I, pointe 3:

| in ionad: | “Spriocam (an bailíochtú san áireamh): An 10 Feabhra 2015 ar 12 a chlog (meán lae), am na Bruiséile”, |
| --- | --- |

in ionad:

“Spriocam (an bailíochtú san áireamh): An 10 Feabhra 2015 ar 12 a chlog (meán lae), am na Bruiséile”,

| léitear: | “Spriocam (an bailíochtú san áireamh): An 17 Feabhra 2015 ar 12 a chlog (meán lae), am na Bruiséile”. |
| --- | --- |

léitear:

“Spriocam (an bailíochtú san áireamh): An 17 Feabhra 2015 ar 12 a chlog (meán lae), am na Bruiséile”.

---
From: ksw55@live.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:14:52 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.

This is an OUTRAGEOUS mandate on people who believe abortion is WRONG and for people who

believe in EACH PERSON'S PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY - not entitlement from welfare (i.e. Tax Payer

Burden).

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* (NOTHING is "free"; Tax Payers are bearing each dollar of the

burden)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).

Please 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

GOV'T 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. This could potentially destroy employers' abilities to survive!! This

could cost JOBS and DESTROY the ability of employers to keep existing jobs available.

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,

Kathleen Weick

Columbus, IN 47203
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Condensed Balance Sheets at September 30, 1997 and Condensed Statement of Income
and Statement of Cashflow for the nine months ended September 30,1997, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,111
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          17,555
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,353
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  47,833
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         23,130
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,970
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    47,833
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,880
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      420
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   628
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,278
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (446)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (36)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (410)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (410)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
        

</TABLE>