alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|   | Title of Each Class of |   | Maximum Aggregate |   | Amount of |   |
|   | Securities Offered |   | Offering Price(1) |   | Registration Fee(2) |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|   | 1.250% PowerNotes® | Due July 15, 2020 |   | $1,293,000 |   | $130.21 |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|   | 1.550% PowerNotes® | Due July 15, 2022 |   | $1,407,000 |   | $141.69 |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|   | TOTAL |   |   |   |   | $271.90 |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |

|     |                                    |
|-----|------------------------------------|
| (1) | Excludes accrued interest, if any. |

|     |                                                                             |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2) | Calculated in accordance with Rule 457(r) under the Securities Act of 1933. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|   | CUSIP | Aggregate |   | Selling | Gross |   | Net | Coupon | Coupon |   | Coupon |   | Maturity |   | 1st Coupon |   | 1st | Survivor's | Product |   |   |
|   | Number | Principal |   | Price | Concession |   | Proceeds | Type | Rate |   | Frequency |   | Date |   | Date |   | Coupon | Option | Ranking |   |   |
|   |   | Amount |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | Amount |   |   |   |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|   | 14912HSE1 | $1,293,000.00 |   | 100% | 0.950% |   | $1,280,716.50 | Fixed | 1.250% |   | Semi- |   | 07/15/2020 |   | 01/15/2017 |   | $6.49 | Yes | Senior Unsecured |   |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | Annual |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | Notes |   |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|   | CUSIP | Aggregate |   | Selling | Gross | Net |   | Coupon | Coupon |   | Coupon | Maturity | 1st Coupon | 1st | Survivor's | Product |   |   |
|   | Number | Principal |   | Price | Concession | Proceeds |   | Type | Rate |   | Frequency | Date | Date | Coupon | Option | Ranking |   |   |
|   |   | Amount |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | Amount |   |   |   |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|   | 14912HSF8 | $1,407,000.00 |   | 100% | 1.350% | $1,388,005.50 |   | Fixed | 1.550% |   | Semi- | 07/15/2022 | 01/15/2017 | $8.05 | Yes | Senior Unsecured |   |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | Annual |   |   |   |   | Notes |   |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |

----
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2013-0239 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2010-SW-087-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
From: gramanpathev@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:45:22 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,

Lenore Thivierge

Green Cove Springs, FL 32043
Page 1 of 1

REG -]Q039-/0

LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION | [As of: September 01, 2011
PUBLICATION 2 Be ULanons Received: August 16, 2011

Status: Posted

PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: September 01, 2011

Tracking No. 80ce1b52
‘Comments Due: September 30, 2011
Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0017
Requirement for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers to Provide Coverage of
Preventive Services under the PatientProtection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0017-0038
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services
under Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment

Document: [RS-2010-0017-0117
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information
Name: bethany ionta
Address:
woodinville, WA,

General Comment

I strongly support the new policy requiring health-insurance plans to cover birth control without a
co-pay, CMS-9992-IFC2. Thank you for this important improvement to women's health care.

I also want you to know that I am concerned that certain religious employers may be allowed to
opt out of the requirements. All women should have access to contraceptive coverage, regardless
of where they work.

This policy finally should make near-universal access to birth control a reality for all women who
use it,

Improving women's access to birth control is positive in so many ways. A woman who can plan
when to have a family is able to participate in society more fully. Allowing women to space their
pregnancies contributes to healthy childbearing. And ultimately, fewer unintended pregnancies
can reduce the need for abortion.

Thank you for following science-based recommendations and making women's health a priority.

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectlId=09000..._ 9/1/2011
#### Michael COULTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Earl I. ANZAI,* et al.; Attorney General of Hawaii, Defendant-Appellees.

No. 99-16542.

D.C. No. CV-98-00343 ACK.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 14, 2001.

Decided July 11, 2001.

Before B. FLETCHER, CANBY, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 Earl Anzai is substituted for Margery S. Bronster. Attorney General of Hawaii, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Appellant Michael Coulter seeks injunctive relief against the State of Hawaii, *662arguing that state laws prohibiting commercial boating activity into and on the Ala Wai Canal Waterway in Oahu violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The district court granted summary judgment for the State on the grounds that the case was nonjusticiable because Coulter lacked standing, and also because the case was not ripe. The district court also held that even if the case were justiciable, Coulter’s claim would fail on the merits because it was foreclosed by *Barber v. State of Hawaii,*42 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir.1994).

We affirm on the ground that Coulter’s claim is not ripe. Coulter never filed an application for a permit with the Department of Land and Natural Resources (“DLNR”). Indeed, Coulter only presents his own unsupported declaration alleging the loss of a business opportunity, certain rejection of his application by DLNR, and threat of prosecution. Thus, his purported injury is only hypothetical at this stage.

Because we find Coulter’s claim to be unripe, we decline to address other aspects of the district court’s decision. In addition, we deny the State’s request for attorney’s fees.

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.
#### William Gaston GRIFFIN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA; North Carolina Parole Commission, Respondents—Appellees.

No. 03-7648.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 20, 2005.

Decided Aug. 24, 2005.

William Gaston Griffin, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

William Gaston Griffin seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr.,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)). A prisoner’s notice of appeal is deemed filed when submitted to prison officials for mailing in accordance with *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988). However, the prisoner must comply with Fed. R.App. P. 4(c)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1746 (2000) to benefit from this mailbox rule.

*207The district court’s judgment was entered on the docket on September 3, 2003. The notice of appeal was filed on October 7, 2003.* Because Griffin failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.

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*

*

 Because Griffin’s notice of appeal did not comply with Fed. R.App. P. 4(c)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1746 (2000), we find he is not entitled to the benefit of the mailbox rule.
**Exhibit
      32.2**




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


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Sunrise Energy
      Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, Roman Livson, 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, as amended; and




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




Date:
      May
      12, 2006




By:/s/
                Roman LivsonRoman
                LivsonChief
                Financial Officer
From: rbergsma@firstchurchhighland.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:31:22 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,

Randall Bergsma

Highland, IN 46322
From: emailcherylshank@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:45:16 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,

Cheryl Shank

Gardiner, ME 04345
From: herminabq@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:39:26 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,

Herman Smith

Albuquerque, NM 87112
From: tom@allrail.us

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:26:37 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,

Tom Calton

Rutherfordton, NC 28139
Exhibit 32.1

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2008 of Teen Glow Makeup, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), I, Pamela Hutchinson, Chairman, President and 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 Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2. The information contained in this Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

 

Date: January 13, 2009

 

/s/ Pamela Hutchinson

Pamela Hutchinson

President, Secretary Treasurer, Principal Executive Officer,

Principal Financial Officer and Director