alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The First Bancorp Declares Dividend



DAMARISCOTTA, Maine  (BUSINESS WIRE)  June 18, 2009  The Board of Directors of The First Bancorp (NASDAQ: FNLC), today declared a quarterly dividend of 19.5 cents per share. This second-quarter dividend, which is payable July 31, 2009, to shareholders of record as of July 6, 2009, represents an increase of 2.6% or 0.5 cent per share over the second-quarter dividend declared in 2008 of 19.0 cents per share and is equal to the 19.5 cents per share declared in the previous three quarters.

Given that many companies are reducing their dividends due to current economic conditions, I view maintaining our dividend at its current level as a very positive factor for The First Bancorp, stated Daniel R. Daigneault, the Companys President & Chief Executive Officer. Given the current low level of interest rates, we feel the yield of our dividend is very attractive. 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 $16.63 per share, this results in a current dividend yield of 4.69% annually.

Our Board of Directors believes a balance between strong capital and a reasonable dividend payout is in the best interest of our shareholders, President Daigneault continued. In these challenging economic times, capital management has become increasingly important for all banks. 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.



-30-
No. 58657.

protest 79679-K (Portland, Oreg.).

#### Samuel S. Perry *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of chairs the same in all material respects as those involved in *Calif-Asia Co., Ltd.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 133, C. A. D. 475), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 32.1

 

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

(SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002)

 

In connection with the Annual Report of, Sears Oil and GasCorporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, G. Reed Petersen, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director ofthe Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1)  The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

Dated:  February 13, 2013

 

By:  /s /G.Reed Petersen

-----------------------------------------------

G. Reed Petersen, President,

Chief Executive Officer,

and Director
From: d.wells@insightbb.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:34:11 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,

Dan Wells

Lexington, KY 40514
From: dona1418@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:12:39 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,

Dona Hewitt

Girard, OH 44420
No. 59719.

#### Aero Sea Shipping Corporation *v.*United States,

protest 260730-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended May 25, 1955, effective July 1, 1955, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                              7
<CIK>                                         0001037559                   
<NAME>                     American Public Holdings, Inc.
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUN-30-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          33,205,530
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                  0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                    0
<EQUITIES>                                             0
<MORTGAGE>                                     1,032,006
<REAL-ESTATE>                                    754,620
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                36,519,860
<CASH>                                           480,028
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                     0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                        10,742,450
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                51,793,879
<POLICY-LOSSES>                               33,242,533
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                              791,189
<POLICY-OTHER>                                   985,917
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                            401,085
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                          52,844
<OTHER-SE>                                    15,354,949
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  51,793,879
<PREMIUMS>                                    13,417,847
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            1,302,114
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               (27,325)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                    24,862
<BENEFITS>                                     9,920,681
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                    1,604,389
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           3,421,142
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (233,714)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (5,210)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (228,504)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (228,504)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (4.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (4.32)
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                         0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                    0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                      0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                     0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                       0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                        0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                                0
        


</TABLE>
From: mstout@lakeviewmed.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:24:56 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,

Michael Stout

Virginia Beach, VA 23464
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

In connection with this Annual Report (the “Report”) of Forbes Energy Services Ltd. filed on Form 10-K (the“Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, L. Melvin Cooper, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and AssistantSecretary 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, to my knowledge, 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 results of operations of the Company. 

 

Date: March 29, 2011 

 
Ex. 32.2– Page 1
Case No. 10,196

#### NEW YORK v. HICHLAND.

[6 Ben. 289.] 1

District Court, S. D. New York.

Jan., 1873.

Overloading Pier — Exceptions to Libel.

A libel to recover damages for injury to a pier by overloading it. which states that the pier is within navigable waters from the ocean and within the ebb and flow of the tide, and does not •show that the pier is a part of the land, is not liable to exception, as failing to state a case within the jurisdiction of the admiralty.

The libel in this case alleged that the libel-lants were owners of pier 46, East river, in the city of New York; that the pier was within navigable waters from the ocean, and within the flow of tide water; and that the respondent [William Hichland] was the owner of the bark Maggie L. Carvill, which, while lying alongside such pier, negligently discharged cargo on the pier and damaged it to the amount of $10,000. The respondent excepted to the libel, because the cause of action was not of admiralty cognizance.

A. J. Vanderpoel, for libellant.

C. Donohue, for respondent.

1

 [Reported by Robert D. Benedict, Esq., and here reprinted by permission.]

BLÁTCHFORD, District Judge.

I must overrule the exceptions to the libel in this case, on the ground that it does not appear, by the libel, that the pier named was part of the land, and was not a floating pier, while it is alleged, by the libel, that the pier was “within navigable waters from the ocean, and within the flow of tide water.”
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1490 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 273
110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1490

                          [Report No. 110-879]

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 24, 2008

    Mr. Arcuri, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

    Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the 
same day it is presented to the House is waived with respect to any 
resolution reported on any legislative day through September 27, 2008, 
providing for consideration or disposition of a measure to provide 
incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain 
expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for 
other purposes.
                                                 House Calendar No. 273

110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 1490

                          [Report No. 110-879]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 24, 2008

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
From: nan.kue@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:37:51 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to implore you to rescind the coercive and unlawful 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 am totally opposed to the

federal 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,

Nancy Kuehn

Emporia, KS 66801
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

36 38 40 

### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 08/01 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 01 Aug 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.81 N 76.74 WMeters AGL
From: burnrubbernancy@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:32:08 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,

Nancy Price

Escondido, CA 92025