alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: kathrynjtoohill@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:05:50 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,

Kathryn Toohill

Sun City, CA 92587
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Bernard P. Germain, Jr., Appellant. John E. Sweeney, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[632 NYS2d 327]

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 26, 1994, which ruled, *inter alia,*that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he received employer-funded pension benefits.

After being laid off from his job as an iron worker, claimant received $2,100 per month from a union pension fund. The Board found claimant ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits because he received employer-funded pension benefits which exceeded his benefit rate. Claimant argues that he contributed to his pension by working and that, therefore, he should not be deemed ineligible to receive benefits. Inasmuch as the evidence established that claimant’s employer made the monetary contributions to the pension fund and that claimant received more in pension benefits than his benefit rate, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant was ineligible for benefits.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
(R.D. 11494)

#### Elof Hansson, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 902656.

(Decided February 27, 1968)

*Sharp, Solter & Hutchison*for tbe plaintiff.

*Ed-wín L. Weisl, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the 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, subject 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 duty purposes.

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

> *7905. That at the time relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified hr 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.

Opon 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 schedule. 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.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted
Pursuant

To Section 906 Of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Intelsat Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies that to such officers
knowledge, the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |                        
|---------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                       | 
|Date: November 9, 2007 |  | /s/    DAVID
MCGLADE   
|                       |  | David McGlade          
|                       |  | Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not
being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
#### James O. NEWHOUSE, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, Respondent.

No. 05-3024.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 17, 2005.

Before NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, ARCHER, Senior Circuit Judge, and SCHALL, Circuit Judge.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: *AFFIRMED. See*Fed. Cir. R. 36
From: sheilahopkins@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:38:25 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,

Sheila Hopkins

Brooklyn, NY 11221
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kyle A. Bewino, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 985]

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Rensselaer County (McGrath, J.), rendered August 19, 1994, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of two counts of the crime of robbery in the third degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery in the third degree and, in accordance with the plea agreement, was sentenced to two consecutive terms of 2 to 6 years in prison. Defendant argues and the People agree that the imposition of consecutive sentences was illegal and that concurrent terms of imprisonment are appropriate for the crimes at issue (see, Penal Law § 70.25 [2]). Defendant seeks to have the judgment modified so as to provide for concurrent prison terms. The *940People, however, request that the judgment be reversed, defendant’s guilty plea be vacated and the matter remitted for further proceedings on the indictment. Inasmuch as the plea agreement reveals that the parties intended defendant to serve a total of 4 to 12 years in prison, we decline to modify the judgment by imposing concurrent sentences. Accordingly, the judgment must be reversed, defendant’s guilty plea vacated and the matter remitted to County Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this decision.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, White, Casey and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, guilty plea vacated and matter remitted to the County Court of Rensselaer County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.
Exhibit
32.1:  Section 906 Certification of the Chief Executive
Officer





CERTIFICATION
OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the
undersigned officer of ServisFirst Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company") certifies
that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the
year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.





Date:  March
      8, 2010
              By
              /s/THOMAS A BROUGHTON
IIIPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer





A signed
original of this written statement has been provided to the registrant and will
be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 69628.

#### J. C. De Jong & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 60/30304, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of pole ends similar in all material respects to those the subject of *J. C. De Jong & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(52 CCPA 26, C.A.D. 852), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>




<ARTICLE>                                                               5
<MULTIPLIER>                                                            1
<CURRENCY>                                                        U.S. DOLLARS


<S>                                                                 <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                 DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                                    JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                                      MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                   1
<CASH>                                                            2,898
<SECURITIES>                                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                     25,259
<ALLOWANCES>                                                      (918)
<INVENTORY>                                                       1,772
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                  33,463
<PP&E>                                                            234,626
<DEPRECIATION>                                                    89,499
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                    255,049
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                             26,954
<BONDS>                                                           140,593
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                             0
<PREFERRED>                                                       0
<COMMON>                                                          46,702
<OTHER-SE>                                                        25,791
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                      255,049
<SALES>                                                           57,283
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                  57,283
<CGS>                                                             35,731
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                     50,947
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                2,815
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                   3,918
<INCOME-TAX>                                                      1,568
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                               0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                   0
<CHANGES>                                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                                      2,350
<EPS-BASIC>                                                     0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                     0.17



</TABLE>
1

Fellner, Christian

From: Fellner, Christian

Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 5:01 PM

To: 'Chris Van Atten'

Subject: RE: Generator Cost

Attachments: CT hist cap factor Aug-19-2013 V2.xlsx

Chris,

The attached excel file contains the simple cycle capacity factor information we discussed.  It was pulled from the Clean Air Markets

Division database, http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/.

Let me know if you have any questions,

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Christian Fellner

Energy Strategies Group

Sector Policies and Programs Division

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

United States Environmental Protection Agency

919.541.4003 (phone)

919.541.5450 (fax)
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant

To
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Intelsat
Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies that to such officers knowledge, the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



|                       |  |  |  |  |  |                                          
|---------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------
|Date: November 8, 2010 |  |  |  |  |  | /S/ MICHAEL
MCDONNELL                    
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | Michael McDonnell Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is
being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Mark Bradley, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of Players Network, a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) the report on Form 10-Q of Players Network. (the "Registrant") for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2010 (the "Report") which this statement accompanies fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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








Date: August 13, 2010





/s/ Mark Bradley


Name:  Mark Bradley


Title: Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
From: Jeremy Martin <JMartin@ucsusa.org>

To: Dallas Burkholder/AA/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 09/03/2012 10:40 AM Subject: Extension request on EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0632 Dear Mr. Burkholder, I would like to request an extension to the public comment period for the waiver request (EPA– HQ – OAR – 2012 – 0632). I need more time to develop analysis and comments on this matter. Please let me know if any additional information is requested. Regards, Jeremy Jeremy I. Martin, Ph.D., Senior Scientist Clean Vehicles Program, Union of Concerned Scientists 1825 K Street NW, Suite 800, Washington DC 20006 - 1232 (202) 331 - 6946
This .zip file contains graphic files (in .png format) of each chart and graph in the Economic Research Service report "Changes in Retail Organic Price Premiums from 2004 to 2010" ERR-209, published in May 2016. 
The content and context of these files is as of the publication date of the report. After time, the material may not reflect the current ERS program of work, may be outdated, and/or superseded, so please visit the 
website to obtain the latest information: www.ers.usda.gov. 
Any reuse of these images should include attribution to "Economic Research Service/USDA."

The following inventory lists each of the files in this folder.


File name			Description       
(Summary chart.png)		Summary chart - Organic price premiums, 2010 
(Fig01.png)			Figure 1 - Organic price premiums, 2010 
(Fig02.png)			Figure 2 - Impact of store type on unit price  
(Fig03.png)			Figure 3 - Impact of month on unit price  
(Fig04.png)			Figure 4 - Impact of region on unit price
(Fig05.png)			Figure 5 - Organic price premiums for dairy and eggs 
(Fig06.png)			Figure 6 - The spinach organic price premium is the only fruit and vegetable premium that fell significantly during 2004-10
(Fig07.png)			Figure 7 - Organic price premiums for fresh vegetables are fluctuating
(Fig08.png)			Figure 8 - Organic price premium for single-ingredient processed foods decreased, 2004-10 
(Fig09.png)			Figure 9 - Organic price premium for soup is increasing  
(Fig10.png)			Figure 10 - Despite rising organic baby food sales, the premium for strained baby food rose over 2004-10
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of BJs Wholesale Club, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended April 29, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, Frank D. Forward, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the undersigneds knowledge:

(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 results of operations of the Company.



|                    |  |                        
|------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: June 8, 2006 |  | /S/ FRANK D. FORWARD   
|                    |  | Frank D. Forward       
|                    |  | Chief Financial Officer
From: logosjtw@ksu.edu

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:03:33 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. 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,

Joshua Wilson

Manhattan, KS 66503