alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: phyllis.sharp@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:30:07 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,

Phyllis Sharp

Lakeland, FL 33811
CONSENT OF COUNSEL

                  We consent to the reference to our Firm under the heading
"Counsel and Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm" in Post-Effective
Amendment No. 35 to the Registration Statement on Form N-1A of Connecticut Daily
Tax Free Income Fund, Inc. as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on or about May 30, 2008.

/S/ PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP
PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP


New York, New York
May 30, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 184 (Monday, September 25, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 65756]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20744]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD


Public Availability of the Merit Systems Protection Board Fiscal 
Year (FY) 2020 Service Contract Inventory

AGENCY: Merit Systems Protection Board.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is publishing this 
notice to advise the public of the availability of its FY 2020 Service 
Contract Inventory as required by the Consolidated Appropriations Act 
of 2010. This inventory provides information on service contract 
actions over $25,000 awarded in FY 2020. The inventory was developed in 
accordance with guidance issued on November 5, 2010, by the Office of 
Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). 
The OFPP's guidance is available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/procurement/memo/service-contract-inventories-guidance-11052010.pdf. The MSPB posted its 
inventory on its website at https://www.mspb.gov/publicaffairs/contracting.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tset Wong, Contracting Officer, Office 
of Finance and Administrative Management, Merit Systems Protection 
Board, 1615 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20419; telephone 202-254-4408; 
email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5f2b2c3a2b71283031381f322c2f3d71383029"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b9cdcadccd97ced6d7def9d4cac9db97ded6cf">[email protected]</span></a>.

Jennifer Everling,
Acting Clerk of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2023-20744 Filed 9-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7400-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
10/18/2011 14:09 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS 1001/003 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter of Clifford Press 

FAA Case No. 2011EA150045 

Hearing Docket No. not yet assigned 

Administrative Law Judge not yet assigned 

DECEIVED 

OCT17 2M 

'lAR/Nn DOCKET 

^alh \0oy 

MR. PRESS' ANSWER TO FAA COMPLAINT 

Comes now, Mr. Clifford Press, and hereby answers the FAA's Complaint as follows; 

Paragraph 1. Admit. 

Paragraph 2. Deny. 

Paragraph 3. Object as irrelevant to the charges made by the FAA as the events charged in the 

Complaint did not occur during the climb out phase of flight, therefore deny. 

Paragraph 4. Deny. 

Paragraph S, Deny. 

Paragraph 6. Admit to the extent that in the galley of the aircraft, a flight attendant verbally 

instructed Mr. Press to return to his seat, but deny to the extent that this allegation may be construed 

as charging that Mr. Press failed to follow that instruction. 

Paragraph 7. Deny. 

Paragraph 8. Deny. 

Paragraph 9. Deny to the extent the allegation characterizes Mr. Press' conduct as being 

"disruptive" and as to the remainder of the allegation, Mr. Press is without sufficient personal 

knowledge of these actions of others to admit or deny the allegation, therefore deny. 

Paragraph 10. Mr. Press is without sufficient personal knowledge to know of actions taken by 

another person to admit or deny this allegation, therefore deny. 

Paragraph 11. Deny. 
10/18/201 1 14:0 9 FAX 202493514 2 FAA •> DMS (2002/003 

Furthermore, Mr. Press denies any violation of the Federal Aviation Regulations, including a 

specific denial of any violation of Sections 121.317(f), 121.317(k), and 121.580, as alleged in the FAA's 

Complaint. 

In addition, Mr. Press denies that a civil penalty of $1,100 is appropriate. 

Wherefore, Mr. Pre.s.<: requests that this matter proceed to hearing in Washington, D.C, and 

prays that the FAA's Complaint be dismissed in its entirety. 

Respectfully submitted, 

LAW OFFICES OF YODICE ASSOCIATES 

Served [ 0 j^LJ^)! ! 

KathiedoA^oditd, Esq. 

411 Aviation Wa^/Suite 245 

Frederick, MD 21701 

Phone 301-695-2300 

Fax 301-695-2151 
10/18/2011 14:09 FAX 2024935142 FAA •>• DM S lgj003/003 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing document (Answer to FAA Complaint) in the Matter of 

Clifford Press has been sent by First Class Mail as follows: 

Original and one copy to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave,, S.W. 

WB.«.hington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

Once copy to: 

Judith L. Vaughan 

Attorney, Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 1 of 18
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 2 of 18
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 3 of 18
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 4 of 18
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 5 of 18
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 6 of 18
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 7 of 18
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 8 of 18
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 9 of 18
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 10 of 18
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 11 of 18
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 12 of 18
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 13 of 18
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 14 of 18
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 15 of 18
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 16 of 18
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 17 of 18
Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 14 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 18 of 18
|   | (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:  April 29, 2014      | By:    | /s/ Jo Webber      |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|                                                          |   | Jo Webber          |   |
|                                                          |   | Chief Executive Officer |   |

----
No. 63812.

protests 58/16628, etc. (New York).

#### Fred B. Cooper Co., Inc., and Hudson Shipping Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that an allowance was made for gelatinous substance on certain canned hams and similar pork products equal to 8 or 10 percent of the contents of the tins, whereas there should have been an allowance of 12 percent. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following *Axel Stokby et al.*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 343, C.D. 358), the merchandise was held dutiable at 3% cents per pound under paragraph 703, Tariff Act of 1930, upon the basis of the net weight of the contents of the tins, less an allowance for gelatinous substance equal to 12 percent of the contents of each tin.
No. 69680.

#### The Gould Merrereau Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/24294 (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of brass pole ends similar in all 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 plaintiff was sustained.
From: amandaghhall@frontier.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:16:06 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,

Amanda Hall

White Hall, IL 62092
From: ronanddot@comporium.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:40:58 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,

Ron Whitmire

Fort Mill, SC 29708
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (i)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
 Dated: August 29, 2008
    
    /s/ SALLY FRAME KASAKS

Sally Frame KasaksChief Executive OfficerPacific Sunwear of California, Inc.
(Principal Executive Officer)Dated: August 29, 2008
    
    /s/ MICHAEL L. HENRY

Michael L. HenryChief Financial OfficerPacific Sunwear of California, Inc.(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, DC 20549

FORM 10-Q

(Mark One)

/X/	Quarterly report under Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for the quarterly period ended June 30, 1993.

/ /	Transition report under Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act for the transition period from _____________ to ____________

Commission file number: 0-19258

BAYFIELD LOW INCOME HOUSING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)



|Delaware
State or Other Jurisdiction of
Incorporation or Organization) | 11-3022123
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification Number)
|---------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------

c/o Megan Asset Management, Inc.
1424 West Century Ave., Suite 102, Bismarck, ND 58503
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)

(Registrant's Telephone Number, Including Area Code): (701) 223-2923



Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act during the past 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such
reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.		Yes / /		No /X/

APPLICABLE ONLY TO ISSUERS INVOLVED IN BANKRUPTCY

PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PRECEDING FIVE YEARS

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant filed all documents and reports required to be filed by Section 12, 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act after the distribution of securities under a plan confirmed by a court.	Yes /
/		No /X/

The information required by Parts I and II of this Form for the quarterly period ended June 30, 1993 is contained in Annual Report on Form 10-K of the registrant for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1994 and is incorporated by
reference to such Report.



SIGNATURES

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 thereunto duly authorized.



|Dated: May 29, 2000 | BAYFIELD LOW INCOME HOUSING 
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
By: MEGAN ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC.
Independent Manager
|------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                    | By:/s/ Paul J. MaddockPaul J. Maddock, President
Exhibit 32.1


                                  CERTIFICATION


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Booth Creek Ski Holdings, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 1, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

     1.   The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
          Section 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.

September 12, 2003


                                        By:/s/ GEORGE N. GILLETT, JR.
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                               George N. Gillett, Jr.
                                              Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of Jamar B., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 967]

—In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Schindler, J.), dated August 17, 1993, which, upon a fact-finding determination of the same court dated July 19, 1993, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of robbery in the second degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him with the Division for Youth for a period of 18 months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding determination dated July 19, 1993.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Family Court’s actions in commencing the fact-finding hearing and subsequently granting a motion for a continuance did not deprive him of his right to a speedy hearing, inasmuch as the hearing was commenced within the statutory time limit of Family Court Act § 340.1 (1) *(see, Matter of Robert B.,*187 AD2d 347; *Matter of Raymond B.,*160 AD2d 936; *Matter of Jeffrey V.,*185 AD2d 240, *affd*82 NY2d 121).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620; *Matter of Stafford B.,*187 AD2d 649), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the fact-finding order since it overwhelmingly established the appellant’s knowing participation in the incident *(see, e.g., Matter of Andre L.,*207 AD2d 348; *Matter of Karriem E.,*206 AD2d 476; *People v Taylor,*203 AD2d 77; *People v Moses,*162 AD2d 311; *People v Crutchfield,*149 AD2d 857). Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94; *Matter of Stafford B., supra).*Its determination is accorded great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, Matter of Jermaine T,*150 AD2d 702). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the Family Court’s determi*662nation was not against the weight of the evidence *(cf.,*GPL 470.15 [5]).

Finally, we agree with the presentment agency that any error committed during the cross-examination of the appellant was harmless given the overwhelming evidence against him *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230; *People v Castillo,*215 AD2d 574). Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Copertino and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
Docket No : FAA - 2015 - 0937 D ir ID: 2014 - NM - 024 - AD