alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: kthemmen@thewisp.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:26:34 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,

Tanya Hemmen

Sterling, IL 61081
CERTIFICATE
OF AMENDMENTOFAMENDED AND RESTATEDCERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATIONOF

SUNRISE
ENERGY, INC.

Sunrise
Energy,  Inc.,  a  corporation  organized  and  existing  under  and by  virtue  of  the
General  Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the Corporation), DOES
HEREBY CERTIFY:

FIRST:   
That the Board of Directors of the Corporation has adopted resolutions proposing and
declaring advisable the following Amendment to the Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation of the Corporation:

| | RESOLVED,that Article I of the Corporations Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation will be superseded and amended to read in its entirety as follows:
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARTICLE
I

| | The
name of the Corporation is Sunrise Energy Resources, Inc.
| | -------------------------------------------------------------

SECOND: That the holders of a majority of the issued and outstanding shares of the
Corporations common stock, $0.001 par value, the only class of voting
securities outstanding, have approved the said Amendment in accordance with the
provisions of Section 212 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware.

THIRD:   
That the aforesaid Amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the applicable
provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed by
David A. Melman, its President and its Secretary, as of the 4th day
of October, 2004.

| | SUNRISE
ENERGY, INC.(to be SUNRISE ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.)
By /s/ David A. Melman
           David A. Melman,
           President and Secretary
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 464 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          June 7, 2007.
    Resolved,  That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (S. 5) to amend the Public Health Service Act to 
provide for human embryonic stem cell research. All points of order against the 
bill and against its consideration are waived except those arising under clause 
10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be considered as read. The previous question 
shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening 
motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; 
and (2) one motion to commit.
    Sec. 2. During consideration of S. 5 pursuant to this resolution, 
notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone 
further consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated by the 
Speaker.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
From: ellieshouse7@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:37:49 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,

Ellen Anderson

Suffolk, VA 23434
# 

# CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

POWERNOTES (SM)

With Maturities of 9 months or more from Date of Issue

Registration No.  333-97047

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (3)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO.  377                                                               Trade Date:  01/09/04

(To Prospectus Supplement dated August 15, 2002 &

  Prospectus dated August  8, 2002)                                                                     Issue Date:   01/15/04

The Date of this Pricing SupplementJanuary 09, 2004

SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION OR REPAYMENT

  CUSIP                                                                                                                                Date and terms of redemption or

     or        Stated                                                                  Interest                                    repayment (including any

Common  Interest                      Price to  Discounts &        Payment  Survivors                  applicable regular or special

  Code      Rate (1)               Maturity                Public (2)                Commissions      Frequency      Option     Yes/No                record dates)

14911QRS2   3.1%                        01/15/08          100%                    0.8%                  Quarterly           YES                       NO                                        

 

Principal                                                                                1st Payment Day         

Amount                   Proceeds                 Dealer                            Date                  Count

$795,000.00                $788,640.00            ABN AMROInc.                 04/15/04                 30/360    

Original Issue Discount Note:                                                                   Total Amount of OID:

____  Yes                X   No                                                                                   N/A

The interest rates on the PowerNotes (SM) may be changed by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation from time to time, but any such change will not affect the interest rate on any PowerNotes (SM) offered prior to the effective date of the change.  Prior to the date of this Pricing Supplement, $388.518 mm principal amount of the PowerNotes (SM) were sold at interest rates then in effect.  Subsequent offerings of PowerNotes (SM) will be made under the Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated August 8,2002.

Expressed as a percentage of aggregate principal amount.  Actual Price to Public may be less, and will be determined by prevailing market prices at the time of purchase as set forth in the confirmation sheet.
Before the Second Division,

March 8, 1966

No. 69825.

protests 64/23871, etc. (New York).

#### Isaac B. Cohen & Sons Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of rubber bulb horns similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 69382, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### Iona Franklin, Appellant, v Man-Del Food Stores, Inc., Respondent.

[632 NYS2d 467]

—Appeal by the plaintiff from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Di Tucci, J.), dated May 2, 1994.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated by Justice Di Tucci at the Supreme Court. Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Santucci, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.
Offer Letter, between Coinstar, Inc. and J. Scott Di Valerio



 Exhibit 10.1 
 January 2, 2013 
 Dear Scott, 
 It is with great pleasure that Coinstar offers you the position of Chief Executive Officer with the company commencing on April 1, 2013. During the period from January 2, 2013 through
March 31, 2013 you will continue in your current role as Chief Financial Officer. Effective on April 1, 2013, you will assume the title, authority and responsibilities of Chief Executive Officer of Coinstar, Inc. reporting directly to the
Board of Directors. This letter will serve to confirm our understanding of your acceptance of this position. 
 Salary 

Effective April 1, 2013, your compensation will be based on an annualized salary of $750,000 less all required withholding for taxes and social
security. You will be paid bi-weekly (26 times per year). 
 Incentive Plans: 
 You are also eligible to participate in Coinstar’s incentive plans in 2013. As of the effective date of this promotion, your target bonus opportunity will be 100% of your base compensation. The
allocation of your short-term incentive compensation will be guided by the 2013 Executive Incentive Compensation Plan as administered by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Committee”). 

Your total 2013 Long-Term Incentive Plan (LTIP) is also administered by the Committee and the value of the LTIP will be approximately $2,000,000. The
LTIP will consist of approximately fifty percent (50%) performance based restricted stock, thirty percent (30%) options, and twenty percent (20%) time-based restricted stock. All equity will be subject to the terms of the
Company’s 2011 Incentive Plan (“Equity Incentive Plan”) and the respective grant and award agreements. This equity award will be processed with the annual equity grants of other executives in February, 2013. 

Benefits 
 You will continue to be
eligible for your current Coinstar benefits. 
 Scott, if you agree with and accept the terms of this offer of employment, please sign and
return one copy of this letter to our office by January 2, 2013. Congratulations on your promotion, we look forward to an exciting future. 
  

									
	Sincerely,	 		  	Accepted by:	 		  	
					
	 /s/ Deborah L. Bevier
	 		  	 /s/ J. Scott Di Valerio
	 	Date	  	 January 2, 2013

	Deborah L. Bevier	 		  	J. Scott Di Valerio	 		  	
	Chair of the Board of Directors
#### Anthony Santisi, Respondent, v Mario Parente et al., Appellants.

[633 NYS2d 194]

—In an action to compel the sale of real property, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.), dated May 27, 1994, which, after a hearing, determined that the fair value of the property was $255,000.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff sought to exercise an option to purchase real property from the defendants. Each party called an expert to testify as to the fair value of the property and each party applied the income method. The defendants asserted that the court erred by discrediting the testimony of its expert and crediting the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert in establishing the fair value of the property.

As the trier of fact, the court reasonably credited the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert. The defendants’ expert admitted that he failed to deduct taxes, structural mainte*738nance, and accounting expenses from gross profits. Additionally, he overestimated the useful square footage of the property and disregarded the market prices of comparable properties. While actual income is generally the best indicator of value *(see, Matter of Conifer Baldwinsville Assocs. v Town of Van Buren,*115 AD2d 325; *Matter of Schoeneck v City of Syracuse,*93 AD2d 988), this figure was meaningless in this case because the property was no longer encumbered by a lease. Accordingly, the court correctly adopted the appraisal of the plaintiffs expert, which reflected the fair market price of the unencumbered property. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
No. 62736.

#### American Manufacturing Co. *v.*United States,

protest 312147-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of textile machinery and parts thereof used for manufacturing or processing vegetable fibers similar in all material respects to the textile machinery and parts the subject of *The A. W. Fenton Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(34 Cust. Ct. 202, C.D. 1705), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5



<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       6,250
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 326 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                    September 18, 2007.
Whereas the Vietnam Veterans Memorial marks the 25th anniversary of its 
        dedication in 2007;
Whereas the Memorial commemorates the sacrifice of more than 58,000 men and 
        women who lost their lives during the Vietnam War;
Whereas the Memorial honors the sacrifice of the 153,303 men and women who were 
        wounded during the conflict;
Whereas the Memorial honors the more than 3,000,000 men and women who served in 
        the United States Armed Forces in Southeast Asia;
Whereas the Memorial has served as a powerful force for national healing;
Whereas over four million people visit the Memorial each year to pay tribute to 
        lost loved ones and remember the sacrifice of those who served the 
        United States during the Vietnam War; and
Whereas the Memorial is a testament to the dedication of the private individuals 
        and corporations that raised $8,400,000 to build the Memorial: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) honors the sacrifice of the men and women who lost their lives 
        in service of the United States during the Vietnam War;
            (2) recognizes the service of the men and women who were members of 
        the United States Armed Forces during the Vietnam War; and
            (3) commemorates the 25th anniversary of the dedication of the 
        Vietnam Veterans Memorial.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This financial data schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the Consolidated Balance Sheet and related Consolidated Statement of Income
as of and for the nine month period ending September 30, 1999 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           6,834
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,405
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,444
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               442,250
<PP&E>                                       3,753,446
<DEPRECIATION>                                 690,154
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,116,213
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          106,555
<BONDS>                                      1,002,814
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,493
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,784,110
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,116,213
<SALES>                                        604,630
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               604,630
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  345,679
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              82,970
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                175,981
<INCOME-TAX>                                    80,952
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             95,029
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    95,029
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .64


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Aaron PEREZ-LIZARDI, also known as Lizardi Aron Perezdi, also known as Aaron Montoya Perez, also known as Aaron Lizardo Perez, also known as Aaron Lizardi Perez, also known as Manuel Isarde Landin, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-51347.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 17, 2005.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Philip J. Lynch, Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Aaron Perez-Lizardi raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.