alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Erin B. Marston 

Law Offices ofMarston & Cole, P.C. 

821 N Street, Suite 208 

Anchorage, AK 99501 

(907) 277-8001 

l·r<ECEIVE 

JUN 12 20\2 

HEARING DOCKE 

Attorneys for Copper Valley Air Service, Inc. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the matter of: ) 

) Case No. 2011AL030090 

) (Civil Penalty Action) 

Copper Valley Air Service, Inc. ) 

______________ ) FAADocketNo. _______ _ 

REQUEST FOR HEARING 

Copper Valley Air Service, Inc., by and through its attorneys of record, the Law 

Offices of Marston & Cole, P.C., pursuant to Subpart G of Part 13 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations, requests a hearing in this matter to be held in Anchorage, Alaska, 

because a civil penalty is inappropriate. 

-~ 

DATED this~ ' day of June, 2012, at Anchorage, Alaska. 

Request for Hearing 

LAW OFFICES OF MARSTON & COLE, P.C. 

Attorney~JorCopperValley Air Service, Inc. . ~ 

~~'···Lfj~··· ..... By: . 

Erin B. Marston 

AK State Bar No. 8511177 

In re: Copper Valley Air Service, Inc., Case No. 2011AL0300909 

Page I of2 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

This is to certify that on this C.7l{ day of June, 2012, a 

true and correct copy of the foregoing document was 

l2f Mailed 

D Hand-delivered 

D Faxed 

to the following: 

Original and one copy: 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W!OOO 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

One copy: 

Glenn H. Brown, Esq. 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

222 West 7th Avenue, #14 

Anchorage, AJS39ejl3-7587 

Fax: 27~}l!OO /' 

/ , / (j/ , ,./ ! 

~-

Request for Hearing 

In re: Copper Valley Air Service, Inc., Case No. 2011AL0300909 

Page 2 of2
From: edhe@optonline.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:26:46 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,

Edwin Hess

Port Washington, NY 11050
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99-1

                    CERTIFICATION BY 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 Quarterly Report of PanAmSat Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph
R. Wright, President and Chief Executive Officer 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, that to my knowledge:

(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 issuer.

November 12, 2002                         /s/ Joseph R. Wright
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Joseph R. Wright
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer


                                       35
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

DORIS H. MAYO,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT WILKIE, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2017-2236

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 15-4153, Judge Coral Wong 

Pietsch.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

KENNETH M. CARPENTER, Law Offices of Carpenter 

Chartered, Topeka, KS, argued for claimant-appellant. 

 REBECCA SARAH KRUSER, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. 

Also represented by MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., ROBERT 

EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR., CHAD A. READLER; CHRISTOPHER 

O. ADELOYE, Y. KEN LEE, Office of General Counsel, 
United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. 

 ______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (CHEN, MAYER, and BRYSON, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

 October 3, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JANUARY 7, 2014

NO. 03-13-00541-CV

Warren Transportation, LLC, Appellant

v.

Susan Combs, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and

Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas, Appellees

APPEAL FROM 200TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND ROSE

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE JONES

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on June 28, 2013. Appellant has 

filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and having reviewed the record, the Court agrees that the 

appeal should be dismissed. Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismisses the appeal.

The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
From: wigray@earthlink.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: wigray@earthlink.net

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:54:41 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,

Willis Gray

, 29150-2282
EXHIBIT 12
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
            CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION
                                 
              STATEMENT SETTING FORTH COMPUTATION OF
                 RATIO OF PROFIT TO FIXED CHARGES
                            (Unaudited)
                       (Millions of Dollars)
                                 
          
          
                                   Three Months       Six Months
                                      Ended              Ended
                                  June     June     June     June
                                   30,      30,      30,      30,
                                  1997     1996     1997     1996
                                                                   
Net Income                        $ 21.9   $ 20.1   $ 48.9   $ 36.4
                                                                   
Add:                                                               
  Provision for income taxes        12.4     11.2     27.0     21.4
                                                                   
Deduct:                                                            
  Equity in profit of               (.7)     (.7)    (1.2)    (1.1)
partnerships
                                                                   
Profit before taxes               $ 33.6   $ 30.6   $ 74.7   $ 56.7
                                                                   
Fixed charges:                                                     
  Interest on borrowed funds      $ 87.8   $ 75.9   $167.3   $149.6
  Rentals at computed interest*       .7       .6      1.3      1.2
                                                                   
Total fixed charges               $ 88.5   $ 76.5   $168.6   $150.8
                                                                   
Profit before taxes plus fixed    $122.1   $107.1   $243.3   $207.5
charges
                                                                   
Ratio of profit before taxes                                       
plus                                1.38     1.40     1.44     1.38
  fixed charges to fixed charges
     
*Those portions of rent expense that are representative of interest
cost.
Exhibit 99.2








CERTIFICATE 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 (the “Report”) on the
Form 10-K/A of Brand Neue Corp. (the “Company”) for the year ended March 31,
2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof,
I, Adi Muljo, Chief Executive Officer and Director, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





1. The Quarterly Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934, as amended; and





2. The information contained in this Quarterly Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operation of the Company.








Date:  January 20, 2010








ADI
MULJO


Adi Muljo


Chief Executive Officer


and Director





-1-
Order entered June 20 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 00817
- CV DAYDRICK NORRIS, Appellant

V. TRANS AM SFE II LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the County Cou rt at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 18
- 02790
- D



### O RDER Before the Court are appellant’s June 17, 2019 motions. The motions are accompanied by a copy of appellant’s original brief. By the motions, a ppellant , who is pro se, appear s to be seeking a thirty

- day extension of time to file an amended brief that corrects deficiencies we identified in his original brief . Appellant explains he would like to have an attorney review the
amended brief to ensure it complies with the briefing r equirements.
We GRANT the motion and ORDER the amended brief be file d no later than July 22 , 2019. We note the amended brief was first due April 18, 2019 , and we have already granted one extension. Accordingly, we caution appellant that further exten sion requests will be disfavored.
/s/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE
From: darrell@gladtidingschurch.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:05:36 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,

Darrell Bourgeois

Lake Charles, LA 70601
Order entered October 23, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00877-CR

MICHAEL GLEN GARZA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 354th Judicial District Court

Hunt County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 31429

ORDER

Before the Court is the State’s October 21, 2019 motion for extension of time to file its

brief. We GRANT the motion to the extent we ORDER the State’s brief due by November 27, 

2019.

 

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
From: James Anderson

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:10:03 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

James Anderson
Hollis, New Hampshire
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.38



STRATUS PROPERTIES INC.
DIRECTOR COMPENSATION
(Effective January 1, 2018)




Cash Compensation


Each non-employee director of Stratus Properties Inc. (“Stratus”) receives an annual of $35,000.  The lead independent director receives an additional annual fee of $25,000. Committee chairs receive an additional annual fee as follows: Audit Committee, $17,500; Compensation Committee, $12,500; and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, $10,000.  Each committee member, excluding the chair of each committee, receives an additional annual fee as follows: Audit Committee members, $7,500; Compensation Committee members, $6,000; and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, $5,000. Each director also receives reimbursement for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in attending board and committee meetings.


Equity-Based Compensation


Each non-employee director receives equity-based compensation under Stratus’ stock incentive plans, which were approved by Stratus’ stockholders.  On September 1st of each year, each non-employee director receives a grant of restricted stock units (RSUs) having a grant date fair value equal to $45,000. The RSUs vest ratably over the first four anniversaries of the grant date. Each RSU entitles the director to receive one share of Straus common stock upon vesting.
No. 69673.

#### Robert Bosch Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 61/3215, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of spark plugs similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Lodge Sparta Plug Co.*v. *United States*(49 Cust. Ct. 158, C.D. 2379), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION



<PAGE>



                                  Exhibit 32.1



                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL 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  accompanying  Annual  Report on Form  10-K of  Bedrock
Energy,  Inc.  for the year ended  December  31,  2008,  I, W.  Edward  Nichols,
President, Chief Executive Officer, Secretary, Chairman and Principal Executive
Officer of Bedrock Energy,  Inc.,  hereby 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:

     a)   such Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bedrock  Energy,  Inc. for the year
          ended  December 31, 2008,  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of
          section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     b)   the  information  contained  in such  Annual  Report  on Form  10-K of
          Bedrock  Energy,  Inc. for the year ended  December  31, 2008,  fairly
          presents,  in all  material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and
          results of operations of Bedrock Energy, Inc.


Date:  March 30, 2009


                                             /s/ W. Edward Nichols
                                             ---------------------
                                                 W. Edward Nichols, President
                                                 Chief Executive Officer.
                                                 Secretary and Chairman
                                                 (Principal Executive Officer)




This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.