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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:56:50 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,

Sarah Hardy

Vero Beach, FL 32960
No. 66489.

#### Aris Gloves, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/27401 (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issue is the same in all material respects as that the subject of *United States*v. *Steinberg Bros.*(47 C.C.P.A. 47, C.A.D. 727), and the record showing that the merchandise consists of nylon gloves similar in use to silk gloves, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 08661**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket** **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 08661\08661_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

08661\08661_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 08661\08661_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 08661\08661_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08661\08661_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08661\08661_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08661\08661_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08661\08661_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08661\08661_Part F.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08661\08661_Part G.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08661\08661_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08661\Belews Creek Follow Up Responses Final.docx Draft Questions for Follow Up

08661\Certification Statement Plant ID 08661.pdf Plant certification statement x 08661\Quest08661.doc ? x 08661\Supplemental Documents\08661_Belews Creek A5-3.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08661\Supplemental Documents\08661_Belews Creek D3-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08661\Supplemental Documents\08661_BELEWS CREEK F5-6.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08661\Supplemental Documents\08661_Belews Creek FGD WWTS Description.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08661\Supplemental Documents\08661_Final Design Report Belews Creek_7-14-05.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08661\Supplemental Documents\08661_GE ABMet Marshall Station Pilot Final Report.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08661\Supplemental Documents\08661_Treatability Report 041013.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08661\Supplemental Documents\BELEWS CREEK MAP 1 A5-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08661\Supplemental Documents\BELEWS CREEK MAP 2 A5-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08661\Supplemental Documents\BELEWS CREEK MAP-1G3-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08661\Supplemental Documents\BELEWS CREEK MAP-2 G3-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

08661\Supplemental Documents\CBI Substantiation\Duke Energy_EIP FOIA.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 08661\08661_Cover Letter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in theSteam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
Exhibit 11


                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                   (Unaudited)



                                                  Six Months Ended March 31
                                                     2000           1999
                                                     -------------------
Weighted average shares outstanding
         Common stock                              4,711,523     4,759,914
         Common stock equivalents                        -0-           -0-
                                                   ---------     ---------


Weighted average common shares and
     equivalents                                   4,711,523     4,759,914
                                                  ==========    ==========


Net (loss) income                                 (1,218,000)      682,000
                                                  ==========    ==========

Net (loss) income per share:
         Basic                                    $    (0.26)   $     0.14
         Diluted                                  $    (0.26)   $     0.14
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 of Orbit/FR, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Dave Lubbe, Chief Financial 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.

November 14, 2003

/s/ Dave Lubbe
------------------------
Dave Lubbe
Chief Financial Officer
From: gjn8db@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:23:40 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,

Ronda Zidack

Diamond Bar, CA 91765
From: almahammond027@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:09:40 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,

Alma Hammond

Mcdonough, GA 30252
UNITED STATES


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Washington, D.C. 20549





FORM 8-K





CURRENT REPORT





Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934





Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): December 19, 2013








COMMUNITYONE BANCORP


(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)





North Carolina000-1382356-1456589


(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation)(Commission File Number)(IRS Employer Identification Number)








1017 East Morehead Street, Charlotte North Carolina 28204


(Address of principal executive offices)





Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (336) 626-8300





N/A


(Former name or former address, if changed since last report)








Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:





[]Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)[]Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)[]Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))[]Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))




















---




Item 5.02.       Departure of Directors or Certain Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of Certain Officers; Compensatory Arrangements of Certain Officers.





(d) Louis A. "Jerry" Schmitt, a director of CommunityOne Bancorp and its bank subsidiary, CommunityOne Bank, N.A., has announced his retirement from the board of directors of CommunityOne Bancorp and CommunityOne Bank, N.A. effective December 31, 2013.





Mr. Schmitt has served as a director of CommunityOne Bancorp and CommunityOne Bank, N.A. since its recapitalization on October 21, 2011, and was a member of the Risk Management Committee and the Compensation and Nominating Committee, serving as the Chair until October 2013.





Mr. Schmitt's retirement was for personal reasons, and not because of a disagreement with CommunityOne Bancorp, CommunityOne Bank N.A., or their respective boards of directors.














---




SIGNATURE


Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.


December 20, 2013COMMUNITYONE BANCORP(Date)(Registrant)/s/ David L. NielsenDavid L. NielsenChief Financial Officer
No. 65159.

#### Peerless Robes and Sportswear *v.*United States,

protest 60/12485 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Since the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
1 Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-60662 Summary Calendar

SAMUEL B. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JAMES ANDERSON, Commissioner; C. DAVID TURNER, Superintendent; SAMUEL JOHNSON, Deputy Warden; HUBERT JORDAN; JERRY WALLEY; KEITH

DUNNAM; LOUIS GONG; STATE OF MISSISSIPPI,

Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:99-CV-268-PG

-------------------- February 22, 2001

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

Samuel B. Johnson, Mississippi inmate #42325, appeals the

magistrate judge’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as

frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted. Johnson reiterates that Rule Violation Reports were

ambiguous because they bore different dates and charged different

offenses.

Johnson received notice of the charges sufficient to satisfy

due process concerns. S ee Wolff v. McDonnell 418 U.S. 539, 564-67

(1974). The confinement in isolation for twenty days and the2

change in inmate classification did not constitute an “atypical and

significant hardship” sufficient to implicate constitutional

concerns. S ee Sandin v. Conner

, 515 U.S. 472, 485 (1995); Moody v.

Baker , 857 F.2d 256, 257-58 (5th Cir. 1988).

We do not consider for the first time on appeal Johnson’s

allegation that medically classified prisoners are denied

incarceration in privately operated prisons. S ee Lever ette v.

Louisville Ladder Co.

, 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999), cert.

d enied

, 120 S. Ct. 982 (2000). We do not consider Johnson’s

slavery issue raised for the first time in a post-judgment motion

to amend. S ee Martin v. Scott

, 156 F.3d 578, 580 (5th Cir. 1998),

cert. denied , 527 U.S. 1041 (1999).

Johnson’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous.

See Howard v. King

, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because

the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

The dismissal of Johnson’s appeal and the dis trict court’s

dismissal of his complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a

claim count as strikes for pu rposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). S ee

Adepegba v. Ham mons , 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). We

caution Johnson that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not

proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while

he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
Before the First Division,

February 27, 1967

No. P67/47.

#### Paul K. Frankford, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 65/708 (New York).

Bao, C. J.

Li accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of synthetic rubber *868soling and on the authority of the decision cited in said stipulation, *United States*v. *Weather-Rite Sportswear Co., Inc.*(52 CCPA 7, C.A.D. 848), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the First Division,

February 9, 1956

No. 59715.

#### Anson, Incorporated *v.*United States,

protest 214485-K (Providence).

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This case relates to certain brass-clad steel strips that the collector classified as material, suitable for use in the manufacture of jewelry, under paragraph 1527 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T. D. 52739, carrying a dutiable rate of 40 per centum ad valorem. Plaintiff claims that the merchandise is properly classifiable as manufactures of base metal, not specially provided for, under paragraph 397 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T. D. 51802, with a duty assessment of *22}{*per centum ad valorem.

The sole witness to appear herein was the director of purchases and quality control of the plaintiff corporation, a manufacturer of men’s jewelry, such as cuff links, tie slides, key chains, knives, and money clips. The witness stated that the brass-clad steel strips in question were bought “as an emergency measure,” during the war period when the supply of brass was not sufficient to meet plaintiff’s production needs. His uncontradicted testimony establishes that the merchandise in question proved to be entirely unsuitable for use in the manufacture of jewelry. Its steel composition was so heavy for plaintiff’s power-press equipment that it cracked tools and dies. Then, too, it contaminated the degreasing and plating solutions, making it impossible to degrease the material, thereby preventing an essential process followed by plaintiff in its manufacture of all jewelry items. Plaintiff, having found the imported merchandise to be useless, ultimately sold it as scrap.

Based on the witness’ familiarity with the processes of manufacture followed by other manufacturers of costume jewelry, he testified further that all of such manufacturers operate their plants in the same manner as plaintiff and that the brass-clad steel strips in question would be just as unsuitable for use to any jewelry manufacturer as it proved to be to plaintiff.

It is abundantly clear from plaintiff’s undisputed testimony that the merchandise in question is not material, suitable for use in the manufacture of jewelry, as classified. Hence, the collector’s action must be and hereby is overruled. Since it is agreed between the parties that the strips in question are “steel, brass-clad,” and that this merchandise is “not gold, silver, or platinum, and that it is not plated with gold, silver, or platinum, and it is not set with any precious or semi-precious stones,” we hold it to be properly classifiable under the residuary provision in paragraph 397, as modified, *supra,*for manufactures of base metal, not specially provided for, and dutiable thereunder at the rate of 22)4 per centum ad valorem, as claimed by plaintiff.

This conclusion is consistent with the admission contained in defendant’s memorandum wherein Government counsel states: “In the case at bar the record seems clear that the brass clad steel sheets were not suitable for use in the manufacture of jewelry and consequently the protest seems well taken.”

The protest is sustained and judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit
      32.1
 
 
 CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 PURSUANT
TO 18 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1350
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Griffin Land & Nurseries, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended May 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Periodic Report”), I, Frederick M. Danziger, President
and Chief Executive 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
      Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
      and
 
 2.
                The
      information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.
 
 
 
 /s/ FREDERICK M.
      DANZIGERFrederick
      M. DanzigerPresident
      and Chief Executive OfficerJuly
      9, 2009
No. 69649.

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

protest 65/7290 (New York).

*488Opinion by

Oliver, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that tbe merchandise consists of plastic paperweights similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 67488, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 323 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        April 19, 2007.
    Resolved,  That the following named Members be, and are hereby, elected to 
the following standing committee of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Foreign Affairs: Mr. Gene Green of Texas (to rank immediately 
after Mr. Tanner), Mr. Crowley (to rank immediately after Mr. Hinojosa).
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Case No. 6,471.

#### HIGGINSON’S CASE.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 73.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

March Term, 1802.

Witness — Surety for Appearance — Compensation during Imprisonment.

A witness, who for want of surety to appear and testify, has been imprisoned, is entitled to-the daily compensation for the time of imprisonment.

[Cited in Robinson v. Chambers, 94 Mich-473, 54 N. W. 176.]

Eleanor Higginson had been ordered by a justice of the peace to recognize with surety in a small sum, to appear and testify as a witness against Daniel Hennissee, on a charge of felony; but being a stranger and unable to get surety, she had been committed to prison and detained until the trial.

Mr. Mason, for the United States,

moved' that she should be allowed payment for her attendance during the whole time she was so detained. The act of 1753, c. 13, only provides for the payment of the prison fees, and makes no allowance for the time of the-witness.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

THE COURT

allowed the witness to prove-her attendance, and ordered her to be paid for the whole time she was detained, it being her misfortune and not her fault that she-could not obtain security for her appearance.
Case No. 13,492.

#### STORRS v. ENGEL.

[Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]