alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Reply

To: ORC
- 158 November 30, 2010
MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Applicability of Oregon’s Title V P rogram to S ources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG s )
FROM: Julie Vergeront

Assistant Regional Counsel TO: File On November 23, 2010, I spoke with Paul Logan, Assistant Attorney General for the State of Oregon. Mr. L ogan has been working with the air program in Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) regarding efforts to ensure Oregon’s regulations are consistent with Clean Air Act requi rements for the regulation of sources of GHG emissions. Mr. Logan confirmed that, although ODEQ’s letters to EPA dated July 29, 2010 and October 1, 2010 primarily address Oregon’s PSD permitting authority for GHG emissions, Oregon’s Title V program also will not require sources of GHG emissions to apply for Title V permits based on their emissions of GHG s until Oregon promulgates final rules that require sources of GHG emissions to apply for Title V permits. He stated that Oregon’s rules do not currentl y regulate GHG emissions from stationary sources and that Oregon’s courts have interpreted the Oregon constitution to prohibit the incorporation b y reference of future rules of non
- Oregon entities, such as EPA. Mr. Logan stated that Oregon recently prop osed changes that would update ODEQ’s PSD and Title V rules to be consistent with the Tailoring Rule for PSD and Title V. Those rule revisions are not expected to be final until February 2011.
No. 69784.

protest 63/612 (Seattle).

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

*868Opinion by

Foed, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of spindles and parts thereof, dedicated to use on twister and spinning frames employing the “Cotton System,” similar in all material respects to those the subject of Atkinson, *Haserick & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(52 Cust. Ct. 215, C.D. 2463), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 68895.

#### Paul E. Sernau, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 64/5357 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise, described on the invoice as “Long neck ducks” and identified as item 870/7 contained in cartons 9363/21-30, consists of natural, preserved, immature 'ducks, chiefly used as a decorative article and not as a toy, and that such ducks consist of feather and downs on the skin, dressed, colored, or otherwise advanced or manufactured, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement(Form S-8, No. 33-58570) pertaining to the 1983 Incentive StockOption Plan of Intrusion Inc. and the 1987 Incentive Stock Option Plan ofIntrusion Inc., the Registration Statement (Form S-8,No. 333-60928) and the Registration Statement (Form S-8,No. 333-57948) pertaining to the 1995 Stock Option Plan ofIntrusion Inc., as amended, the Registration Statement (Form S-8,No. 33-34484) and the Registration Statement (Form S-8,No. 333-90408) pertaining to the 1995 Non-employee Director Stock OptionPlan of Intrusion Inc., as amended, the Registration Statement(Form S-8, No. 33-42927) pertaining to the 1997 Employee StockPurchase Plan of Intrusion Inc., the Registration Statement(Form S-8, No. 33-80898) pertaining to the 401(k) Savings Plan ofIntrusion Inc. and the Registration Statement (Form S-8,No. 333-53813) pertaining to the Essential Communication Corporation 1996Stock Option Plan of our report dated February 4, 2005, except for Note 10, towhich the date is March 28, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements of Intrusion Inc. included in its Annual Report(Form 10-KSB) for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003.

 

 
| /s/ KBA Group LLP  |
|--------------------|
| **KBA  Group LLP** |
| Dallas,  Texas     |
| March  29, 2005    |

 

----
No. 68065.

#### Wing On Company *v.*United States,

protest 60/27998 (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of brass lotus candlesticks similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Wing On Co. et al.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 122, C.D. 2291), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
|CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO                    
|---------------------------------------------
|18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,                      
|AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO                       
|SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Material Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert M. Bernstein, Chief Executive Officer, President and Principle Accounting 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.





|\s\         Robert M. Bernstein      
|-------------------------------------
|Robert M. Bernstein                  
|Chief Executive Officer and President



May 13, 2003

---
(R.D. 11474)

#### H. Reisman Corporation Bernard Lang & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 464252.

(Decided January 24, 1968)

*Siegel, Mandell <& Davidson*for ¡tStie plaintiffs.

*Edwin L. Weisl, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Watson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court:

> That the merchandise covered by the appeal to reappraisement enumerated above, consists of sulfamethazine, a chemical compound appraised on the basis of American selling price as defined in Section *765402 (e), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, which basis of appraisement is not in dispute.

> That the price, 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 delivery, at which competitive merchandise produced in the United States was freely sold for domestic consumption in the principal market of the United States, in the ordinary course of trade and in the usual wholesale quantities, at the time of exportation of the imported merchandise, was $5.85 per kilo, less *1%.*

> That the appeal herein be submitted on this stipulation, limited to the merchandise described herein, and abandoned as to all other merchandise.

On the agreed facts, I find that American selling price, as that value is defined in section 402(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise in question and that such value was $5.85 per kilo, less 1 percent.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
From: wheelhouse1@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:18:31 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,

Leslie Huzyk

, 60305-2121
Before the First Division,

March 30, 1965

No. 69197.

#### Max Factor & Company et al. *v.*United States,

protests 63/19608, etc. (Los Angeles).

*365Opinon by

Nichols, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of canvas wig blocks the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 68482, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Exemption No. 4633M
From: gearnold7@roadrunner.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:41:03 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

Are you without a positive moral code? You must rescind the unjust and coercive mandate that all

"contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance with no co-pay to

patients. At a bare minimum you must 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,

Gary Arnold

Palmdale, CA 93551
[Civ. No. 2032.

Fourth Appellate District.

March 15, 1938.]

#### P. A. SPARKS, Appellant, v. THE BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS, Respondent.

Ray Miller for Appellant.

Harry E. Lindersmith for Respondent.

BARNARD, P. J.

The petitioner sought and obtained a writ of review in an effort to annul an order of the respondent board suspending his license to practice dentistry for a period of five years. After a hearing the trial court entered a judgment affirming the order of the respondent board, from which judgment this appeal was taken.

The respondent has moved to dismiss this appeal upon the ground that the writ of *certiorari*will not lie to review the action of this board in revoking or suspending the license of a dental practitioner for the reason that in so suspending or revoking a license to practice dentistry that board is exercising discretionary administrative functions and is not exercising judicial powers.

Under certain recent decisions we feel compelled to grant this motion to dismiss. *(Standard Oil Co.*v. *State Board of Equalization,*6 Cal. (2d) 557 [59 Pac. (2d) 119] ; *Whitten*v. *California State Board of Optometry,*8 Cal. (2d) 444*342[65 Pac. (2d) 1296] ; *Jacobs*v. *Board of Dental Examiners,*24 Cal. App. (2d) 359 [75 Pac. (2d) 96]; *MacCracken*v. *Board of Medical Examiners,*24 Cal. App. (2d) 58 [74 Pac. (2d) *289]; O’Donnell*v. *Board of Medical Examiners,*22 Cal. App. (2d) 80 [70 Pac. (2d) 246] ; *Hartman*v. *Board of Chiropractic Examiners,*20 Cal. App. (2d) 76 [66 Pac. (2d) 705].)

The appeal is dismissed.

Marks, J., and Jennings, J., concurred.
From: counttheblessings@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:13:42 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 Murphy

Collinsville, IL 62234
From: juniece@comporium.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:18:31 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,

Juniece Isola

Fort Mill, SC 29708
From: ronliz44@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:52:30 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

insurance to their employees.

This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which prohibit government

discrimination against those who object to various health

services on moral or religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so

narrow as to only include churches, but will still mean

that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not

being able to offer employees health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Ron Laughlin

, 77657-5976
EX-4.4



 Exhibit 4.4 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION 
 EXECUTIVE DEFERRED
COMPENSATION PLAN 
 (2003 Amendment and Restatement) 

WHEREAS, The Progressive Corporation Executive Deferred Compensation Plan is currently maintained pursuant to a
2003 Amendment and Restatement (“Plan”); and 
 WHEREAS, it is deemed desirable to amend the
Plan further; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended in the respects hereinafter set forth,
effective November 14, 2003: 
  

	 	1.	Article 1, Section 1.18 of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to provide as follows: 


1.18 “Gainsharing Award” means any bonus or other incentive award payable with respect to a Plan Year under The
Progressive Corporation 2004 Gainsharing Plan, The Progressive Corporation 2004 Information Technology Incentive Plan, The 2004 Progressive Capital Management Bonus Plan, The Progressive Corporation 1999 Executive Bonus Plan (as amended on
January 31, 2003) or any other plan or program as may be designated by the Committee. 
  

	 	2.	Article 2, Section 2.3 of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to provide as follows: 


2.3 Fixed Deferral Periods. 
 If an Eligible Executive wishes to defer receipt of all or a portion of any Award for a fixed period of time (“Fixed Deferral Period”), then his/her Deferral Agreement relating to such Award
shall specify that Fixed Deferral Period. Such Fixed Deferral Period shall not be less than three (3) years following (i) in the case of a deferral of all or a portion of a Gainsharing Award, the end of the Plan Year in which the
Gainsharing Award will be earned and (ii) in the case of a deferral of a Restricted Stock Award, the end of the Plan Year in which the last of the restrictions applicable to the Restricted Stock Award expire. In the case of a Restricted Stock
Award as to which restrictions expire in installments, the Fixed Deferral Period must end on the same date for all installments. Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this Section 2.3, Eligible Executives may not elect a Fixed Deferral
Period with respect to the deferral of any Performance-Based Restricted Stock Award. 
  

	 	3.	Except as expressly provided in this Amendment, the terms and provisions of the Plan shall remain entirely unchanged and continue in full force and effect.


 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly
authorized representative effective as of the date set forth above. 
  

			
	THE PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	/s/ Charles E. Jarrett
	Title:	 	Vice President, Secretary and Chief Legal Officer