alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PUBLIC LAW 114–36—JULY 20, 2015 129 STAT. 435 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2620: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 114–174 (Comm. on Agriculture). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 161 (2015): 

June 23, considered and passed House. 

July 9, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 114–36 

114th Congress 

An Act 

To amend the United States Cotton Futures Act to exclude certain cotton futures 

contracts from coverage under such Act. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. EXCLUDING CERTAIN COTTON FUTURES CONTRACTS 

FROM COVERAGE UNDER UNITED STATES COTTON 

FUTURES ACT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (c)(1) of the United States Cotton 

Futures Act (7 U.S.C. 15B(c)(1)) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘except that any cotton futures contract’’ 

and inserting the following: ‘‘except that— 

‘‘(A) any cotton futures contract’’; 

(2) in subparagraph (A) (as designated by paragraph (1)), 

by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: 

‘‘(B) any cotton futures contract that permits tender 

of cotton grown outside of the United States is excluded 

from the coverage of this paragraph and section to the 

extent that the cotton grown outside of the United States 

is tendered for delivery under the cotton futures contract.’’. 

(b) APPLICATION.—The amendments made by subsection (a) 

shall apply with respect to cotton futures contracts entered into 

on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Approved July 20, 2015. 

7 USC 15b note. 

July 20, 2015 

[H.R. 2620] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
From: davidlwillig@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:02:21 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,

David Willig

Cincinnati, OH 45238
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 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

SUZANNE CAREY,

Plaintiff,

v.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-5720FDB

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

INFORMATION

Plaintiff has filed a “Declaration/Motion for Information.” This cause of action is closed, and

no further motions are appropriate. ACCORDINGLY

IT IS ORDERED: Plaintiff’s Declaration/Motion for Information [Dkt. # 67] is DENIED.

DATED this 11th day of May, 2007.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05720-FDB Document 69 Filed 05/11/07 Page 1 of 1
From: wheezytmpl@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:06:10 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,

Sandra Temple

Ninety Six, SC 29666
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 Amendment No. 1 of the Annual Report of
Forbes Energy Services Ltd. filed on Form 10-K/A (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2008, 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 Assistant Secretary 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 represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



/s/    L. Melvin CooperL. Melvin CooperSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary


Date: April 30, 2009
Amendment No. 1 to Enrique R. Ubarri Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.2 
 AMENDMENT TO 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is entered into between Doral Financial Corporation, a
Puerto Rico corporation (the “Company”), and Enrique R. Ubarri (the “Executive”) under the following circumstances. 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive entered into an Employment Agreement on October 2, 2006 (the “Employment Agreement”); and 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive have agreed to amend certain terms of the Employment Agreement by entering into this
Amendment. 
 NOW THEREFORE, the Executive agrees with the Company, in consideration for good and valuable consideration,
the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged and accepted, to amend the Employment Agreement as follows, effective as of the date this Amendment is executed as written below: 

5. Section 5(a)(ii) of the Employment Agreement is amended to read as follows: 

(ii) an amount equal to two (2) times his compensation (salary and bonus) during the preceding year (the “Severance
Payment”), and if such termination occurs in the first year of employment, the Severance Payment shall be $1,280,000.00 dollars, with such Severance Payment being made within two and one-half months after the Date of Termination, and
being payable only if the Executive executes the Release within the 60-day period following the Date of Termination; 
 6.
Section 6(b)(ii) of the Employment Agreement is amended to read as follows: 
 (ii) payment of the Severance Payment
provided in Section 5(a)(ii) above, with such Severance Payment being made within two and one-half months after the Date of Termination, and being payable only if the Executive executes the Release within the 60-day period following the Date of
Termination; 
 7. Except as is provided in this Amendment, the Employment Agreement, as amended, shall remain unchanged and
continue in full force and effect. 
 8. This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with its express terms,
and otherwise in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, without reference to principles of conflict of laws. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of this 26th day of December, 2012. 

 

			
	DORAL FINANCIAL CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Glen R. Wakeman

	Name:	 	 Glen R. Wakeman

	Title:	 	 President & CEO

	
	ENRIQUE R. UBARRI
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Enrique R. Ubarri
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

NICHOLAS ANDRES FUENTES,

Plaintiff,

v.

LT CLAN JACOBS et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5579RBL

ORDER TO PROVIDE SERVICE

DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has not provided

adequate service documents. There are ten named defendants in this action and plaintiff has only

provided filled out marshal service forms for four of the defendants. The court still needs forms for

defendants Martin, Espino, Maynard, Price, Larsen, and Watts. In addition the court needs copies of

the complaint for all defendants. The Clerk is directed to send plaintiff six service forms.

Plaintiff will fill out the forms and return them along with ten copies of the complaint so the

court can attempt service by mail. The documents must be returned on or before November 18th

2005 or the court will recommend dismissal for failure to prosecute.

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order and the service forms to plaintiff and note

this matter for November 18th, 2005.

DATED this 7th day of October, 2005.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05579-RBL Document 5 Filed 10/07/05 Page 1 of 1
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Antimonydeposits of Alaska**
 
Report | Plate
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:649
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000955739
 
July 17, 2018
From: Bluebirdinc@bresnan.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:56:45 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am concerned that once again those who despise our Constitution are denying God given rights in

favor of socialism - the enemy of freedom. These services should be put into a rider where individuals

of child bearing age (females) can pay for them - not all males, children, and women post-menopausal.

Belief in birth control is an individual choice - this is not Communist China, yet.

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,

Daniel Davis

La Junta, CO 81050
Before the Second Division,

December 9, 1965

No. 69679.

#### J. C. De Jong & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 60/11743, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of pole ends similar in all material respects to those the subject of *J. C. De Jong & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(52 CCPA 26, C.A.D. 852), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: supportusa@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:01:48 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,

Bruce Anderson

Vacaville, CA 95687
Before the Third Division,

February 16, 1961

No. 65171.

#### Novelty Import Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 60/9817, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of wall plaques similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Ross Products, Inc.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 74, C.D. 2106), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: kevwash@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:00:25 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,

Kevin Washington

Waldorf, MD 20602
Exhibit 24
  POWER OF
    ATTORNEY
  Form 10-K
    Signature

Title

Date/s/  William
    R. FitzgeraldWilliam
    R. Fitzgerald

Chairman of the Board, Director and
    Chief Executive Officer of Ascent Media Corporation

March 12, 2010/s/  Jose
    A. RoyoJose
    A. Royo

Director, President and Chief Operating Officer of Ascent Media
    Corporation

March 12, 2010/s/  Philip
    J. HolthousePhilip
    J. Holthouse

Director of Ascent Media Corporation

March 12, 2010/s/  John
    C. MaloneJohn
    C. Malone

Director of Ascent Media Corporation

March 12, 2010/s/  Brian
    C. MulliganBrian
    C. Mulligan

Director of Ascent Media Corporation

March 12, 2010/s/  Michael
    J. PohlMichael
    J. Pohl

Director of Ascent Media Corporation

March 12, 2010/s/  Carl
    E. VogelCarl
    E. Vogel

Director of Ascent Media Corporation

March 12, 2010/s/  George
    C. PlatisaGeorge
    C. Platisa

Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
    of Ascent Media Corporation (Principal Accounting Officer)

March 12, 2010
From: kpmitch_2000@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:24:04 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,

Katherine Mitchell

Marion, IN 46952