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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:17:07 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,

Joseph Barnoski

, 22312-1509
To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:43:47 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,

Dennis Taylor

San Jose, CA 95148
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1474 

Recognizing the 50th anniversary of the first vertical ascent of the face 

of El Capitan in Yosemite National Park and honoring the historic 

climbing feat of the original climbing team. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2008 

Mr. RADANOVICH (for himself, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Mr. NUNES, Mr. 

COSTA, Ms. MATSUI, Mrs. BONO MACK, Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of 

California, and Mr. SHIMKUS) submitted the following resolution; which 

was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the 50th anniversary of the first vertical ascent 

of the face of El Capitan in Yosemite National Park 

and honoring the historic climbing feat of the original 

climbing team. 

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;’’ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1474 IH 

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; 

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 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 1474 IH 

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 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes the 50th anniversary of the mo3 mentous first vertical ascent of the face of El Capi4 tan in Yosemite National Park; and 

5 (2) honors the historic climbing feat of the 

6 original climbing team. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
Exhibit 99.1



The First Bancorp Declares Dividend



DAMARISCOTTA, Maine  (BUSINESS WIRE)  March 18, 2009  The Board of Directors of The First Bancorp (NASDAQ: FNLC), today declared a quarterly dividend of 19.5 cents per share. This first-quarter dividend, which is payable April 30, 2009, to shareholders of record as of April 6, 2009, represents an increase of 5.4% or 1.0 cent per share over the first-quarter dividend declared in 2008 of 18.5 cents per share and is equal to the 19.5 cents per share declared in the previous two quarters.

I am pleased to announce that our Board of Directors voted to maintain the dividend at the same level as the prior quarter, stated Daniel R. Daigneault, the Companys President & Chief Executive Officer. The quarterly dividend of 19.5 cents per share translates into an annual dividend of 78.0 cents per share, and based on yesterdays closing price of $16.58 per share, this results in a current dividend yield of 4.70% annually. In our view, this is extremely attractive given the dramatic drop in rates recently.

In these challenging economic times, capital management has become increasingly important for all banks, President Daigneault continued. That being said, the Board also feels that maintaining our quarterly dividend at this level is equally important and in the best interest of our shareholders. With the $25 million of additional capital that we received under the U.S. Treasury Capital Purchase Program, our total risk-based capital ratio is nearly 14.0%, which is very comfortably above the FDICs well-capitalized threshold of 10.0%.

The First Bancorp, headquartered in Damariscotta, Maine, is the holding company for The First, N.A. Founded in 1864, The First is an independent community bank serving Mid-Coast and Down East Maine with 14 offices in Lincoln, Knox, Hancock and Washington Counties. The Bank provides a full range of consumer and commercial banking products and services. First Advisors, a division of The First, provides






investment advisory, private banking and trust services from two offices in Lincoln and Hancock Counties.

Forward-looking and cautionary statements: except for the historical information and discussions contained herein, statements contained in this release may constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements involve a number of risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results and events to differ materially, as discussed in the Companys filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

For more information, please contact F. Stephen Ward, the First Bancorps Treasurer & Chief Financial Officer, at 207.563.3272.
From: daryl@sanibelchurch.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:59:54 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,

Daryl Donovan

Sanibel, FL 33957
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

J. J. M.

, :

Petitioner :

: CASE SEALED

v. : No. 386 M.D. 2017

: Pennsylvania State Police, : Respondent :

PER CURIAM O R D E R

NOW

, April 27 , 201 8 , it is ordered that the above

- captioned Memorandum

Opinion, filed March 2 0 , 201 8 , shall be designated OPINION and shall be

REPORTED.
|                                                                         |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                         |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|                                                                    | Three Months EndedSeptember 30, |   | Nine Months EndedSeptember 30, |
|                                                                    | 2013 |   | 2012 |   | 2013 |   | 2012 |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Profit                                                                  | $ | 118 |  |   | $ | 109 |  |   | $ | 370 |  |   | $ | 333 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Add:                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Provision for income taxes                                              | 44 |  |   | 41 |  |   | 131 |  |   | 126 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Profit before income taxes                                              | $ | 162 |  |   | $ | 150 |  |   | $ | 501 |  |   | $ | 459 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Fixed charges:                                                          |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Interest expense                                                        | $ | 179 |  |   | $ | 201 |  |   | $ | 557 |  |   | $ | 603 |  |
| Rentals at computed interest*                                           | 1 |  |   | 1 |  |   | 4 |  |   | 4 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Total fixed charges                                                     | $ | 180 |  |   | $ | 202 |  |   | $ | 561 |  |   | $ | 607 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Profit before income taxes plus fixed charges                           | $ | 342 |  |   | $ | 352 |  |   | $ | 1,062 |  |   | $ | 1,066 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Ratio of profit before income taxes plus fixed charges to fixed charges | 1.90 |  |   | 1.74 |  |   | 1.89 |  |   | 1.76 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
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): October 17, 2018











THE FIRST BANCORP, INC.


(Exact name of Registrant as specified in charter)





MAINE


(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation)





0-2658901-0404322(Commission file number)(IRS employer identification no.)








Main Street, Damariscotta, Maine04543(Address of principal executive offices)(Zip Code)








(207) 563-3195


(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)





Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is


intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligations


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))














---




TABLE OF CONTENTS





Item 2.02 Results of Operations and Financial ConditionPage 1Item 9.01 Financial Statements and ExhibitsPage 1SignaturesPage 2Exhibit IndexPage 3














---










Section 2 - Financial Information





Item 2.02 Results of Operations and Financial Condition.





On October 17, 2018 , the Registrant issued the press release filed herewith as Exhibit 99.1 with information regarding the results of operations and financial condition of The First Bancorp, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2018 .











Section 9 - Financial Statements and Exhibits





Item 9.01 Financial Statements, Pro Forma Financial Information and Exhibits.





(c) Exhibits.


--------





The following Exhibits are being furnished herewith:





99.1 Registrant's Press Release dated October 17, 2018 .











1


---




SIGNATURE





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











THE FIRST BANCORP, INC.








By: /s/ Richard M. Elder





Richard M. Elder


Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer





Dated: October 17, 2018











2


---




Exhibit Index














Exhibit Number    Description of Exhibit





99.1 Registrant's Press Release dated October 17, 2018 .











3
RECORD OF CONFERENCE CALL

DATE: May 2 8, 2011 EPA PARTICIPANTS: OAQPS/SLPG and OTAQ OUTSIDE EPA PARTICIPANTS: None SUBJECT: Presentation of Regulatory Support Document final results and discussion on Proposed Rule for Determining Widespread Use of ORVR and Stage II Vapor Recovery Waiver. DISCUSSION: Conference call held to discuss final edits to preamble and to prepare for presentation to OMB on the final analysis of the financial benefits for facilities that are electing to decommission their system on ce States eliminate the Stage II requirements. Also checked the draft language to include in the preamble indicating the results of the analysis. Marked up copies of proposed rule and regulatory support document transmitted via email.
BEFORE THE SECOND DIVISION,

March 20, 1967

No. P67/68.

#### James Loudon & Co., Inc., and Jet Corp. of America *v.*United States,

protest 61/4893 (San Francisco).

Rao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of electric swizzle stick mixers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Bloomfield*Industries, *Inc.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 287, Abstract 68974), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. P68/500.

protest 67/18569 (Los Angeles).

#### National Silver Co. *v.*United States,

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of batteries, classified as entireties with flashlights, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Torch Mfg.*Co., *Inc.*v. *United States*(57 Cust. Ct. 521, C.D. 2863), wherein said batteries were held to be separately dutiable, and that no separate value for each of said items had been returned by the appraiser, the protest was dismissed and the matter remanded to a single judge to determine the separate value of the flashlights and batteries in the manner provided by law. (28 U.S.C. § 2636(d).)
#### In the Matter of R.W. Granger & Sons, Inc., Respondent, v Comptroller of the State of New York et al., Appellants.

[633 NYS2d 89]

—Mercure, J.

Appeal from a judgment of *946the Supreme Court (Hughes, J.), entered. September 15, 1994 in Albany County, which, *inter alia,*granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to annul a determination of respondents denying petitioner’s request for interim payments under a public works contract.

By this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioner, a general contractor, sought to compel respondent Comptroller to process and pay two interim payment requisitions due under a contract with respondent Office of General Services for the construction of a limited secure residential facility. Payment was denied upon the ground that petitioner had failed to submit labor affidavits from all subcontractors in accordance with Labor Law § 220-a (2). Respondents moved to dismiss the proceeding upon the ground, *inter alia,*of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Supreme Court denied the dismissal motion, reached the merits and granted the petition, holding that respondents had impermissibly expanded the requirements of Labor Law § 220-a. Respondents appeal.

We agree with respondents that the Court of Claims is the proper forum for petitioner’s claim and that Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction over the proceeding *(see,*NY Const, art VI, § 9; Court of Claims Act §§ 8, 9; *Psaty v Duryea,*306 NY 413; *Matter of City Constr. Dev. v Commissioner of N. Y. State Off. of Gen. Servs.,*176 AD2d 1145, 1146). We accordingly reverse Supreme Court’s judgment, grant respondents’ motion and dismiss the petition. Fundamentally, a CPLR article 78 proceeding is not the proper vehicle for resolving contractual rights *(Matter of City Constr. Dev. v Commissioner of N. Y. State Off. of Gen. Servs.,*supra;*see, Matter of Decker v Gooley,*212 AD2d 893). It is clear that petitioner’s primary claim is for the payment of moneys due under its contract with the State, which cannot be resolved absent an interpretation of the Labor Law and the terms of the contract in connection therewith *(see, Matter of City Constr. Dev. v Commissioner of N. Y. State Off. of Gen. Servs., supra).*

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, White and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs, motion granted and petition dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           4,921
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   59,402
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                95,471
<PP&E>                                         849,653
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,038,845
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           69,871
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           402
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,038,845
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                80,080
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                62,967
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,922
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,191
<INCOME-TAX>                                       500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                691
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       691
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>