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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:22:14 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,

Constante TAGAMOLILA

Arlington Heights, IL 60004
From: mic-all@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:12:20 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,

Annette Little

Burton, TX 77835
Exhibit
32.2<?xml:namespace
      prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
      />









AEROCENTURY CORP.









Certification














In connection with this quarterly
report of AeroCentury Corp.
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Toni M. Perazzo,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof,
solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States
Code, that to the best of my knowledge:









(1)  the Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the
periods indicated.









This Certification has not been, and
shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission.














Date: 
      May 15, 2008
            
            /s/ Toni
      M. PerazzoName: 
      Toni M. PerazzoTitle: 
      Chief Financial Officer
From: hisanta2003@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:22:19 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,

Kamala Paul

Houston, TX 77071
Mr. Larry McDonald 

Air Transportation Division/National 

Simulator Program Branch, AFS-205 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

Mr. Robert H. Frenzel 

Manager, Operation Law Branch, 

Office of the Chief Counsel, Regulations Division (AGC-200) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Subject: Flight Simulation Training Device Qualification Standards for Extended Envelope and 

Adverse Weather Event Tasks Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

Dear Mr. McDonald and Mr. Frenzel, 

FlightSafety International Visual Systems kindly requests that the Federal Aviation Administration grant 

an extension to the current comment period for the above mentioned subject. We request that the FAA 

extend the comment period for an additional 90 days. We would like to review the FAA proposed lengthy 

document thoroughly which will require more time to prepare our response/significant comments for 

submittal. 

FlightSafety International is looking forward to working with the FAA. Please contact me if I can be of any 

assistance in this matter. 

Sincerely, 

\ 

Jon Hester 

General Manager, FlightSafety Visual Systems 

C.C: Steve Fedynyszyn 

Steve Krull 

Greg Arend 

A Berkshire Hathaway company 

5695 Campus Parkway • Hazelwood, MO 63042 

Tel: 314-551-8400 • Fax: 314-551-8444 • flightsafety.com 

ISO 9001 :2000 Registered
Exhibit


















UNITED FIRE GROUP, INC.


FIRST AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED ANNUAL INCENTIVE PLAN




This FIRST AMENDMENT (“Amendment”) to the AMENDED AND RESTATED ANNUAL
INCENTIVE PLAN adopted February 24, 2012 (the “Plan”) of United Fire Group, Inc. (the “Company”) is effective as of February 19, 2016.


1.DEFINITIONS. Unless otherwise defined in this Amendment, capitalized terms shall have the same meanings ascribed to them in the Plan. After the date hereof, all references in the Plan to the “Plan” or any similar references in any ancillary agreements or documents shall be deemed to be references to the Plan, as amended by and including this Amendment.


		
	2.
	AMENDMENTS.




		
	a.
	Section 2.9 of the Plan is deleted and replaced with the following:




2.9    “Participant” means an employee of the Company who received Eligible Salary for the Plan Year.
		
	b.
	Section 2.16 of the Plan is deleted.




3.ADOPTION. This Amendment was approved by the Board of Directors of the Company on February 19, 2016.
































{02020699.DOCX}
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6638

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus PURVIS H. GORMLEY, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-96-6-V; CA-04-613-1-V) Submitted: July 14, 2005 Decided: July 27, 2005 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Purvis H. Gormley, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Purvis H. Gormley seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his “Motion for Relief from Final Judgment [Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)], or Alternatively, Petition for a Writ of Audita Querela,” as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 370 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gormley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Gormley’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to- 3 - file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review, or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255 (2000). Gormley’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
(V.D. 153)

#### Novelty Import Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 829735.

(Decided March 20, 1969)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*William D. Ruolcelshmis,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

FoRD, Judge:

This matter is before me on remand from classification proceedings decided by this court in *Novelty Import*Co., *Inc.*v. *United*States, 60 Cust. Ct. 1017, Abstract P68/138, wherein the matter was remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement. It has been submitted on a written stipulation reading as follows:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States:

1. That the involved flashlights and batteries were imported subsequent to the effective date of Section 2 of the Customs Simplification Act (Public Law 927, 84th Cong., T.D. 54165); that said flashlights are identified on the final list, T.D. 54521; that said batteries are not included on said Final List.

*10572. That the involved merchandise consists of flashlights and batteries which were held by the Court, in P68/138 to be subject to_ ap-praisement separately according to the value of each class of article;

3. That on or about the date of exportation, such or similiar flashlights were not freely sold or offered for sale for home consumption in the principal markets of the country of exportation;

4. That at the time of exportation, the price at which such or similar flashlights were freely sold in the principal markets of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to this country, was $.48 per dozen net packed.

5. That at the time of exportation, the price at which such or similar batteries were freely sold in the principal markets of the country of exportation in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to this country, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States was $.36 per dozen net packed.

6. That the above case is submitted for decision upon this stipulation, subject to the approval of the Court.

Upon the agreed facts, I find and hold that export value as that value is defined in section 402a (d), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the involved flashlights and that said value is $0.48 per dozen, net packed; and that export value as that value is defined in section 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the involved batteries and that said value is $0.36 per dozen, net packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### Earnest L. TATE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 97-35714.

D.C. No. CV-97-00871-CRD.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 9, 2001.*

Decided July 19, 2001.

Before KOZINSKI, T.G. NELSON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 Because the panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument, Tate’s motion for oral argument is denied. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Earnest L. Tate appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo dismissals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). *Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order), *cert. denied,*525 U.S. 1154, 119 S.Ct. 1058, 143 L.Ed.2d 63 (1999). We affirm.

On August 13, 1997, the district court certified that this appeal is not taken in good faith, and revoked appellant’s in forma pauperis status. This court, however, did not receive notification of the district court’s certification until June 7, 2001. Based on these circumstances, we conclude that appellant is entitled to in forma pauperis status for this appeal.

Because the statute of limitations is a complete defense which appears on the face of the Tate’s pleadings, the district court did not err in dismissing his com*727plaint. *See Franklin v. Murphy,*745 F.2d 1221, 1228-29 (9th Cir.1984).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 223 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 223

 Supporting the goals and ideals of a National Day of Remembrance for 
                            Murder Victims.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 7, 2007

 Mr. Shadegg (for himself, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Poe, Mr. Franks of Arizona, 
Mr. Moore of Kansas, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Garrett of New Jersey, Mr. King of 
     New York, Mr. Doyle, Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Gordon of Tennessee, Mr. 
Ruppersberger, Ms. Fallin, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Reichert, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. 
   Barrett of South Carolina, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Gingrey, Mr. Issa, Mr. 
 Tancredo, Mr. Linder, Mr. Goode, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California, 
 Mr. Jordan of Ohio, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. 
    Fortuno, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Cantor, Mr. Ryan of 
 Wisconsin, Mr. Kline of Minnesota, Mr. David Davis of Tennessee, Mr. 
 Akin, and Mr. Weldon of Florida) submitted the following resolution; 
 which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Supporting the goals and ideals of a National Day of Remembrance for 
                            Murder Victims.

Whereas the death of a loved one is a devastating experience, and the murder of 
        a loved one is exceptionally difficult;
Whereas the friends and families of murder victims cope with grief through a 
        variety of support services, including counseling, crisis intervention, 
        professional referrals, and assistance in dealing with the criminal 
        justice system; and
Whereas the designation of a National Day of Remembrance For Murder Victims on 
        September 25th of each year provides an opportunity for the people of 
        the United States to honor the memories of murder victims and to 
        recognize the impact on surviving family members: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the goals and ideals of a National Day of 
        Remembrance for Murder Victims; and
            (2) recognizes the significant benefits of the 
        organizations that provide services to the loved ones of murder 
        victims.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 11


                                     ORBIT/FR, Inc.


Exhibit 11. Statement Re: Computation of Earnings Per Share (amounts in
thousands, except share and per share data)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                          Three months ended          Six months ended
                                               June 30,                    June 30,
                                            1997       1996            1997       1996
                                        -------------------------------------------------
                                             (Unaudited)                 (Unaudited)
<S>                                     <C>         <C>            <C>         <C>
Net income                              $      865  $       50     $    1,451  $       77
                                        =================================================

Weighted average number of common
  shares outstanding                     4,219,780   4,000,000      4,110,497   4,000,000

Net effect of dilutive stock options-
  using the treasury stock method           42,734          --         21,963          --

Shares to be issued in connection
  with the AEMI acquisition                  9,171          --          4,611          --
                                        -------------------------------------------------
                                         4,271,685   4,000,000      4,137,071   4,000,000
                                        =================================================

Net income per common share             $     0.20  $     0.01     $     0.35  $     0.02
                                        =================================================
</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1333 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                    September 25, 2008.
Whereas Tay-Sachs disease is a rare, genetic disorder that causes destruction of 
        nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord due to the poor functioning of 
        an enzyme called beta-hexosaminidase A;
Whereas there is no proven treatment or cure for Tay-Sachs disease, which is 
        always fatal in children;
Whereas the disorder was named after Warren Tay, an ophthalmologist from the 
        United Kingdom, and Bernard Sachs, a neurologist from the United States, 
        both of whom contributed to the discovery of the disease in 1881 and 
        1887, respectively;
Whereas Tay-Sachs disease often affects families with no prior history of the 
        disease;
Whereas approximately 1 in 27 Ashkenazi Jews, 1 in 30 Louisianan Cajuns, 1 in 30 
        French Canadians, 1 in 50 Irish Americans, and 1 in every 250 people are 
        carriers of Tay-Sachs disease;
Whereas approximately 1,200,000 Americans are carriers of Tay-Sachs disease;
Whereas these unaffected carriers of the disease possess the recessive gene that 
        can trigger the disease in future generations;
Whereas if both parents of a child are carriers of Tay-Sachs disease, there is a 
        1 in 4 chance that the child will develop Tay-Sachs disease;
Whereas a blood test can determine if an individual is a carrier of Tay-Sachs 
        disease, and those citizens who are members of high-risk populations 
        should consider being screened; and
Whereas heightened awareness and continued research efforts are the best ways to 
        find a treatment for this horrific disease: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports the goals and ideals of 
Tay-Sachs Awareness Month and encourages and supports education and research 
efforts with respect to Tay-Sachs disease.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```