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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:25:05 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,

John Larson

Kalama, WA 98625
Exhibit 4.2



Bilibili Inc.   Certificate Number Number of Shares INCORPORATED IN THE CAYMAN ISLANDS UNDER   THE COMPANIES LAW (AS AMENDED OR REVISED FROM TIME TO TIME) THE AUTHORISED   CAPITAL OF THE COMPANY IS USD 1,000,000.00 DIVIDED INTO (i) 100,000,000 CLASS   Y ORDINARY SHARES OF PAR VALUE USD 0.0001 EACH, (ii) 9,800,000,000 CLASS Z   ORDINARY SHARES OF PAR VALUE USD 0.0001 EACH, AND (iii) 100,000,000 SHARES OF   PAR VALUE USD 0.0001 EACH THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT OF IS THE REGISTED HOLDER   OF fully paid CLASS Z ORDINARY share(s) of USD 0.0001 each IN THE COMPANY   Bilibili Inc. (the "Company") transferable on the books of the   Company by the holder hereof in person or by a duly authorised attorney upon   surrender of this certificate to the Company. This certificate and the shares   represented are issued and shall be held subject to the provisions of the   Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company. EXECUTED on behalf of   the Company this day of Director
IV 

House Calendar No. 70 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 462 

[Report No. 110–177] 

Dismissing the election contest relating to the office of Representative from 

the Fourth Congressional District of Louisiana. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 6, 2007 

Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, from the Committee on House Administration, 

reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Dismissing the election contest relating to the office of Representative from the Fourth Congressional District of 

Louisiana. 

1 Resolved, That the election contest relating to the of2 fice of Representative from the Fourth Congressional Dis3 trict of Louisiana is dismissed. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

House Calendar No. 70 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 462 

[Report No. 110

–177] 

RESOLUTION 

Dismissing the election contest relating to the office 

District of Louisiana. of Representative from the Fourth Congressional 

JUNE 6, 2007 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. 315A14

11 June 2015

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v.

EDDIE DANIEL BERRY

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of 

the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C. App. ___, 761 S.E.2d 700 (2014), finding no error in 

part and dismissing defendant’s appeal in part from judgments entered on 28

February 2013 by Judge James E. Hardin, Jr. in Superior Court, Alamance County. 

Heard in the Supreme Court on 20 April 2015.

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Sarah Y. Meacham and Mary Carla Babb, 

Assistant Attorneys General, for the State.

Staples S. Hughes, Appellate Defender, by Nicholas C. Woomer-Deters, 

Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, the opinion of the Court of 

Appeals is reversed. 

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 the Annual Report on Form 10-K of First National Lincoln
Corporation (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each
of the undersigned, certifies, to the best knowledge and belief of the
signatory, 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 results of
                  operations of the Company.


/s/ Daniel R. Daigneault
-----------------------------------
Daniel R. Daigneault
President & Chief Executive Officer

Date: March 26, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,090,033
<SECURITIES>                                 1,475,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,206,145
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,233,695
<PP&E>                                         524,909
<DEPRECIATION>                                 136,074
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,050,630
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,096,193
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     34,588
<COMMON>                                        63,899
<OTHER-SE>                                      34,644
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,050,630
<SALES>                                      6,383,123
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,383,123
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,727,506
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,087,227
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             209,606
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (629,416)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (629,416)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (765,816)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.14)


</TABLE>
No. 67536.

#### The American Import Co. *v.*United States,

protests 289994-K, etc. (Philadelphia).

*247Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bicycle horns similar in all material respects to those the subject of *G. Joannou Cycle Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 172, C.D. 2253), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: March 19, 2015 105705

________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RORY R. WILLIAMS, Appellant.

________________________________ Calendar Date: January 20, 2015 Before: Garry, J.P., Rose, Lynch and Clark, JJ.

__________ Richard E. Cantwell, Plattsburgh, for appellant. Glenn MacNeill, Acting District Attorney, Malone, for respondent.

__________ Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Franklin County (Main Jr., J.), rendered January 8, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree in satisfaction of an amended indictment charging him and his wife with various crimes. Under the terms of the plea agreement that was approved by County Court, he was to be sentenced as a second felony offender to the minimum of six years in prison. County Court further advised defendant that his sentence would include a period of postrelease supervision, but did not specify the length. Thereafter, County Court sentenced defendant to the agreed-upon prison term and imposed a three-year period of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.-2- 105705

Defendant's sole challenge is to County Court's imposition of a three-year period of postrelease supervision, which he contends is an abuse of discretion and is also harsh and excessive. We disagree. Given that no particular period of postrelease supervision was included in the plea agreement, County Court retained the discretion to determine the length of the term and did not violate the sentencing commitment by selecting the maximum of three years. Notably, the record reveals that defendant has a lengthy criminal record, is a prior parole violator and could have been sentenced to a much lengthier prison term if convicted of the charges contained in the amended indictment. In view of this, and given that defendant was sentenced to the minimum term of imprisonment, we find no extraordinary circumstances nor any abuse of discretion warranting modification of the period of postrelease supervision (see People v Foulkes, 117 AD3d 1176, 1177-1178 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1084 [2014]; People v Watson, 115 AD3d 1016, 1017 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 965 [2014]). Garry, J.P., Rose, Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
134543 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 134543 COA: 277565 Ingham CC: 06-000473-FH JOHN WARRAN WALLACE, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the June 15, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p1022 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 29, 2007

Clerk
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

N OTICE R EGARDING DOCUMENTS F ILED IN C ASE

S TAYED FOR B ANKRUPTCY

Appellate case name: Service Employees International Union Local 5 v. Professional Janitorial Service of Houston, Inc.

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 6

- 00 9 8 8

- CV

Trial court case number: 2007

- 27181

Trial court: 61st District Co ur t of Harris County

T his appeal is stayed pursuant to the “Notice of Bankruptcy,” that appell ant Service Employees International Union Local 5 filed in this Court on Dece mber 2 7 , 2016, stating that appellant has filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11, United States Code, in Case

16

- 80294

, In re Terence J. Martinez, Debtor

, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the

Southern District of Texas. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) (2000) (automatic stay in bankruptcy). Until the parties notify the Court that the bankruptcy has concluded and move to reinstate the case, the Court will take no further action other than to receive and hold any documents tendered during the period of suspension. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 8.2 (providing bankruptcy suspends “the appeal” from date bankruptcy petition was filed until court reinstates or severs appeal in accordance with federal law); see also Budzyn v. Cit ibank (S.D.), N.A. , No. 01

– 08

– 00211

– CV, 2010 WL 2044628, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] May 19, 2010, no pet.) (staying “entire appeal”).

Unless a party successfully moves to reinstate the appeal or sever the appeal with respect to the bankrupt party , this appeal will be an inactive case on the Court’s docket. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P . 8.3.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: January 12

, 2017
From: dmcmin1@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:35:16 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,

M. Costas

Lewes, DE 19958
No. P66/24.

protests 64/21547, 64/24769, and 64/24934 (New York).

#### The Buhler Corp. v. United States,

Rao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of parts essential to and dedicated to use with food preparing machinery similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Standard Milling Co. v. United States*(50 Cust. Ct. 53, C.D. 2388), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 577

# Equipment and Processing

----

#### Home | Acronyms | Figures | Navigation | Equipment and Processing | Images | Logs | Metadata | Download

----

 

----

----

###  

****
From: crystalgalloway@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:59:02 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,

Crystal Galloway

Sioux City, IA 51104
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

ROY P. ALLEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of

Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

CASE NO. C05-5552RBL

ORDER

The Court, having reviewed plaintiff's complaint, the Report and Recommendation of Judge J.

Kelley Arnold, United States Magistrate Judge, and objections to the report and recommendation, if any,

and the remaining record, does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) The administrative decision is AFFIRMED; and

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff's counsel, defendant's counsel

and Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold.

DATED this 18th day of January, 2007.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05552-RBL Document 20 Filed 01/18/07 Page 1 of 1
Dismissed and Opinion Filed January 24 , 2018

.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 17

- 01230

- CV

MIAMI UNIVERSITY , Appellant

V. PAVE SYSTEMS, INC. , Appellee
On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 15

- 13904


### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang

- Miers, Fillmore, and Stoddart

Opinion by Justice Stoddart Before the Court is appellant’s January 12, 2018 agree d motion to dismiss the appeal.
Appellant has informed the Court the parties have reached a settlement agreement and no longer
wish to pursue this appeal. Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

.
R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(2).

171230F.P05 /Craig Stoddart/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE– 2

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

MIAMI UNIVERSITY, Appellant

No. 05

- 17

- 01230

- CV V.
PAVE SYSTEMS, INC., Appellee On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 15

- 13904. Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart. Justices Lang

- Miers and Fillmore participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

. Subject to an y agreement between the parties, it is ORDERED that appellee Pave Systems, Inc. recover its costs of this appeal from appellant Miami University.

Judgment entered this 24th day of January, 2018.
StateofDelawareSecretary ofStateDivision of CorporationsDelivered 11:57 AM 04/27/2010FILED 11:56 AM 04/27/2010SRV100427400 - 4220290 FILE




Certificate of Amendment


of


Certificate of Incorporation




Hightower Acquisition Corporation, a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:




FIRST: That at a meeting of the Board of Directors of Hightower Acquisition Corporation, the following resolution was duly adopted by the Board of Directors setting forth a proposed amendment of the Certificate of Incorporation of said corporation, declaring said amendment to be advisable. The resolution setting forth the proposed amendment is as follows:





RESOLVED, that the Certificate of Incorporation of this corporation be amended by changing the Article thereof numbered “FIRST” so that, as amended, said Article shall be and read as follows: “The name of the Corporation is Adelman Enterprises Inc.”




SECOND: That said amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.




IN WITNESS THEREOF, said Hightower Acquisition Corporation, has caused this certificate to be signed by its President on this twenty seventh day of April, 2010.





By:
/s/ Charles AdelmanCharles AdelmanPresident