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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:29:42 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,

Pedro Valdes

Pittsville, MD 21850
H. Res. 1474 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 29, 2008. 

Whereas November 12, 2008, will mark the 50th anniversary 

of the first vertical ascent of the face of El Capitan in 

Yosemite National Park; 

Whereas in 1890 Yosemite National Park was established as 

the third National Park of the United States; 

Whereas Yosemite National Park is commonly referred to as 

‘‘The Crown Jewel of the National Park System;’’ 

Whereas Yosemite National Park is recognized as the 

‘‘Climbing Mecca’’ of the world; 

Whereas El Capitan is the world’s tallest free-standing granite monolith, with a summit elevation of 7,569 feet above 

sea level; 

Whereas Wayne Merry, George Whitmore, and Warren J. 

Harding, the original climbing team, with the assistance 

of Wally Reed, Allen Steck, Bill ‘‘Dolt’’ Feuerer, Mark 

Powell, John Whitmer, Rich Calderwood, and the ground 

support team of Bea Vogel and Ellen Searby, completed 

the first vertical ascent of the face of El Capitan on November 12, 1958; 

Whereas the first vertical ascent of the face of El Capitan 

was accomplished on the Nose Route, recognized as one 

of the most famous climbing routes in the world; 
2 

•HRES 1474 EH 

Whereas November 8, 1958, marks the date when the final 

push towards the summit of El Capitan was spurred on 

due to deteriorating weather conditions; 

Whereas the first vertical ascent of the face of El Capitan 

was accomplished in 47 days in expedition style; 

Whereas the first vertical ascent of the face of El Capitan 

was accomplished by the original climbing team using 

fixed ropes that linked established camps along the way; 

Whereas the original climbing team relied heavily on aid 

climbing, using rope, pitons, and expansion bolts to make 

it to the summit; 

Whereas thousands of rock climbers have reached the summit 

of El Capitan since 1958 using the identical Nose Route; 

and 

Whereas on November 8, 2008, there will be an event in Yosemite National Park celebrating the 50th anniversary of 

the first vertical assent of the face of El Capitan: Now, 

therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) recognizes the 50th anniversary of the momentous first vertical ascent of the face of El Capitan in Yosemite National Park; and 

(2) honors the historic climbing feat of the original 

climbing team. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Before the Second Division,

February 12, 1969

No. P69/39.

protests 59/11599, etc. (New York).

#### Miniature Fashions, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of shirts for cabana sets similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Miniature*Fashions, *Inc.*v. *United States*(54 CCPA 11, C.A.D. 894) wherein said shirts were held dutiable as entireties with the pants, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THESCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM WILLCOX &
GIBBS,  INC. FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED  SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                               1,155
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       42,191
<ALLOWANCES>                                         3,693
<INVENTORY>                                         45,947
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    94,730
<PP&E>                                               5,276
<DEPRECIATION>                                         884
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     139,802
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               41,491
<BONDS>                                             84,900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             9,162
<OTHER-SE>                                          (1,984)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       139,802
<SALES>                                            135,671
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   135,671
<CGS>                                               93,991
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       93,991
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       830
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   9,092
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (1,722)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          (631)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (1,091)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     (1,557)
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (2,648)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (2.73)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (2.73)

        


</TABLE>
No. 62200.

#### Charles Garcia & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 307222-K (B), etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

The protests were dismissed.
From: kbcarp@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:17:59 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,

Barbara Carpenter

Prairie Village, KS 66208
ANNUAL
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
  Pooling and Servicing
Agreement dated August
1, 2007 (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) by and among Merrill Lynch
Mortgage Investors, Inc., as Depositor, Keycorp Real Estate Capital Markets,
Inc., as Master Servicer No. 1, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Master
Servicer No. 2, U.S. Bank National Association as successor to LaSalle Bank
National Association as Trustee, Bank of America, National Association, as
successor by merger to LaSalle Bank National Association as Custodian, Midland
Loan Services, Inc., as Special Servicer and LNR Partners, Inc., as Special
Servicer for the Farallon Portfolio Loan Combination
 
 ML-CFC
2007-8
   I, Susan
K. Chapman, a Vice President of LNR Partners, Inc. as Special Servicer under the
Pooling and Servicing Agreement, on behalf of the Special Servicer and not in my
individual capacity, hereby certify that:
 
 
 1.
              I
      have reviewed the activities performed by the Special Servicer under the
      Pooling and Servicing Agreement during the period ending the end of the
      fiscal year 2008 (the "Reporting
      Period") and the Special Servicer's performance under the Pooling
      and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision;
      and
 
 2.
              To
      the best of my knowledge, based on such review using the Applicable
      Servicing Criteria, the Special Servicer has fulfilled its obligations
      under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement in all material respects
      throughout the Reporting Period.
 
 LNR
PARTNERS, INC.
 
 
 
 By: /s/ Susan K.
Chapman
 Susan
K. Chapman
 Vice
President
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 1601
      Washington Avenue  ▪  Suite 700  ▪  Miami Beach,
      Florida 33139Telephone:
      (305) 695-5600  ▪  Fax: (305)
695-5601
No. 60487.

#### Bertrand Freres, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 289288-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of essential oils the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Ungerer & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 152, C. D. 1647), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0001036848
<NAME>                                         AEROCENTURY CORP.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                          9,418,450
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     976,160
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               76,356,400
<PP&E>                                         84,743,340
<DEPRECIATION>                                 19,373,130
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 76,356,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          59,418,180
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                            1,610
<OTHER-SE>                                     16,936,610
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   76,356,400
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                8,369,880
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                3,761,140
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              2,388,840
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 2,219,900
<INCOME-TAX>                                      773,020
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             1,446,880
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                    1,446,880
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0.94
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0.94



</TABLE>
No. 68100.

#### A. N. Deringer, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 60/16918, etc. (Ogdensburg).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of granular or sponge iron similar in all material respects to that the subject of *John V. Carr & Son, Inc.*v. *United States*(50 Cust. Ct. 29, C.D. 2384), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 27, 2010 

0920 

Order 

 

September 27, 2010 

141428 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141428 

 COA: 297606 

Macomb CC: 07-000559-FC 

GJIN KOLBUCAJ, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 28, 2010 order 

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.
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1354 

Amending the Rules of the House of Reprsentatives to require a vote each 

year on whether to increase Members’ pay. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 17, 2008 

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Amending the Rules of the House of Reprsentatives to require a vote each year on whether to increase Members’ 

pay. 

1 Resolved, That rule XXI of the Rules of the House 

2 of Representatives is amended by adding at the end the 

3 following new clause: 

4 ‘‘11. (a) During consideration in the Committee of 

5 the Whole of a bill making appropriations for the Depart6 ment of the Treasury for any fiscal year, before consider7 ation of any other amendment, it shall be in order to con8 sider an amendment only proposing to bar the automatic 

9 annual cost-of-living pay adjustment of Members of Con10 gress that would otherwise take effect in such fiscal year. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1354 IH 

1 Such amendment shall be considered as read, shall not 

2 be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a 

3 demand for division of the question in the House or the 

4 Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 

5 amendment are waived. 

6 ‘‘(b) During consideration of a bill, conference report, 

7 or amendment between the two Houses making or con8 tinuing appropriations to the end of a fiscal year that in9 cludes appropriations for the Department of the Treasury 

10 for that fiscal year, it shall not be in order to consider 

11 such measure unless (1) the measure includes a provision 

12 to bar the automatic annual cost-of-living pay adjustment 

13 of Members of Congress that would otherwise take effect 

14 in such fiscal year or (2) the rule providing for its consid15 eration allows a vote proposing to bar such automatic an16 nual cost-of-living pay adjustment.’’. 

17 SEC. 2. The amendment made by this resolution shall 

18 take effect immediately before noon, January 3, 2009. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

59–011 2016

114th Congress, 2d Session – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 114–140 

VETO MESSAGE ON H.J. RES. 88 

MESSAGE 

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRANSMITTING

NOTIFICATION OF THE VETO OF H.J. RES 88, A RESOLUTION 

THAT WOULD NULLIFY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR’S FINAL 

CONFLICT OF INTEREST RULE 

JUNE 9, 2016.—Ordered to be printed 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(1) 

To the House of Representatives: 

I am returning herewith without my approval H.J. Res. 88, a resolution that would nullify the Department of Labor’s final conflict 

of interest rule. This rule is critical to protecting Americans’ hardearned savings and preserving their retirement security. 

The outdated regulations in place before this rulemaking did not 

ensure that financial advisers act in their clients’ best interests 

when giving retirement investment advice. Instead, some firms 

have incentivized advisers to steer clients into products that have 

higher fees and lower returns—costing America’s families an estimated $17 billion a year. 

The Department of Labor’s final rule will ensure that American 

workers and retirees receive retirement advice that is in their best 

interest, better enabling them to protect and grow their savings. 

The final rule reflects extensive feedback from industry, advocates, 

and Members of Congress, and has been streamlined to reduce the 

compliance burden and ensure continued access to advice, while 

maintaining an enforceable best interest standard that protects 

consumers. It is essential that these critical protections go into effect. Because this resolution seeks to block the progress represented by this rule and deny retirement savers investment advice 

in their best interest, I cannot support it. I am therefore vetoing 

this resolution. 

BARACK OBAMA. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, June 8, 2016. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Case No. 8,157.

#### In re LEACHMAN.

[1 N. B. R. 391 (Quarto. 91); 11 Am. Law T. Rep. Bankr. 48.]

District Court, D. Kentucky.

1868.

Bankbuptot — Examination before Register — . Cross-Examination.

A bankrupt on examination may be cross-examined by his own counsel.

[Cited in Re Collins, Case No. 3,008.]

[In the matter of Stephen B. Leachman, a bankrupt.]

1

 [Reprinted from 1 N. B. R. 391 (Quarto, 91), by permission.]

BALLARD, District Judge.

In this case the bankrupt had submitted to an examination before the register by a creditor. The counsel of the bankrupt claimed the right to cross-examine him, and was proceeding to do so, when the counsel for the creditor objected, insisting that the bankrupt cann> examine himself, and that he may only “coi-, rect any statement made during the course of his examination” in the manner prescribed in'general order No. 34. The register has certified the question thus raised for decision here. 1 have already decided, in Re Dean [Case No. 3,699]. bankrupt, that the "examination” of the bankrupt is a “deposition” within the meaning of the bankrupt act [of 1867 (14 Stat. 517)]. Section 26 prescribes bow his attendance before the register may be procured; the matters in respect to which he may be examined; that the examination shall be in writing, and how it shall be disposed of. It then provides that in a like manner the attendance of any other person as a witness may be required. Form No. 46 is the caption of the examination, whether of the bankrupt or of the witness. General order No. 10 provides how the examination of witnesses is to be conducted; and if it does not prescribe the mode of conducting *98the examination of the bankrupt, there is no rule or order relating to the subject. In •my opinion the bankrupt, -when examined, is a witness, so far at least as the mode of conducting his examination and cross-examination are to be conducted as provided in general order No. 10. It certainly would be very hard and unreasonable to require a bankrupt to answer only the questions of a creditor or assignee, and deny him the opportunity of offering as a part of his examination any explanation which he may have to make; and as he cannot be denied the benefit of counsel, I do not see how such explanation could be more appropriately made than in answer to questions propounded by his counsel. Whether the bankrupt when examined is for all legal purposes the witness of the assignee or creditor, or whether his cross-examination is to be conducted precisely as that of other witnesses, are questions not presented by the certificate, and cannot be decided. The clerk will certify this opinion to the register.