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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:34:06 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,

Johanna Gengler

Estes Park, CO 80517
[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: U.S.relations with Cayman Islands.**
 
2012-10-02 | 2014-03-21
 
SuDoc Number:S 1.123:C 31/
Item Number:0862-B (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000956812
 
July 19, 2018
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 DENYING MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

MART LIIKANE, 

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SEATTLE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-1829L

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s Response to Order Declining to

Recuse. (Dkt. #49). Plaintiff asserts that the Court erred in denying his motion to recuse. 

The Court issued its order declining to voluntarily recuse on September 21, 2006. The

motion was then referred to the Honorable Marsha J. Pechman for review. Judge

Pechman denied plaintiff’s motion to recuse on September 27, 2006.

The Court construes plaintiff’s Response as a motion for reconsideration. 

However, it is untimely. Local Rule 7(h). Furthermore, plaintiff has not shown manifest

error in the prior ruling or shown new facts or legal authority which could not have been

brought to the Court’s attention earlier with reasonable diligence. Id.

Case 2:05-cv-01829-RSL Document 51 Filed 10/30/06 Page 1 of 2
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 DENYING MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

DATED this 30th day of October, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01829-RSL Document 51 Filed 10/30/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 4.20



 Exhibit 4.20 
 CONSENT OF ENGINEER 
 Ladies and Gentlemen: 

The undersigned hereby consents to (1) the references to the undersigned’s name included or incorporated by reference in the registration
statement on Form F-80 of Denison Mines Corp. in connection with the report entitled “Technical Report on the Phoenix Deposit (Zones A & B) – Wheeler River Project, Eastern Athabasca Basin, Northern Saskatchewan, Canada” dated
November 17, 2010, and (2) all other references to the undersigned included or incorporated by reference in the registration statement on Form F-80 of Denison Mines Corp. 

 

					
	Dated: January 7, 2013	 		 	
			
	/s/ Gilles Arseneau	 		 	 
	 Gilles Arseneau, Ph.D., P.Geo.

SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc.
October 16, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

HORIZON UNITED GROUP INTERNATIONAL, LLC D/B/A HORIZON GROUP 

INTERNATIONAL, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00606-CV V.

PEARLAND CAPITAL GROUP, LP, Appellee

________________________________

Today the Court heard appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment 

signed by the court below on June 19, 2012. Having considered the motion and found it 

meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellant, Horizon United Group International, LLC d/b/a Horizon Group International.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
No. 67116.

protest 60/2806 (New York).

#### Joseph Markovits, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of glass balls similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Joseph Marlcovits, Inc.*v. *United States*(45 Cust. Ct. 151, C.D. 2216), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit
32.1





Certification Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002








The
undersigned hereby certify that, to his knowledge, (i) the Form 10-K filed by
AB&T Financial Corporation (the “Issuer”) for the year ended December 31,
2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in that
report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Issuer on the dates and for the periods presented
therein.




















Date:  March
30, 2010


/s/Daniel C. AyscueDaniel
      C. AyscuePresident
      and Chief Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)/s/Roger A. MobleyRoger
      A. MobleyExecutive
      Vice President andChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer)
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 39 Filed 09/30/03 Page 1 of 9
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 39 Filed 09/30/03 Page 2 of 9
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 39 Filed 09/30/03 Page 3 of 9
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 39 Filed 09/30/03 Page 4 of 9
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 39 Filed 09/30/03 Page 5 of 9
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 39 Filed 09/30/03 Page 6 of 9
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 39 Filed 09/30/03 Page 7 of 9
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 39 Filed 09/30/03 Page 8 of 9
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 39 Filed 09/30/03 Page 9 of 9
From: anewell2002@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:55:52 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.

Our country is a DEMOCRACY NOT A DICTATORSHIP. This law is a direct violation of our constitutional

rights.

Sincerely,

Alyce Newell

Conway Springs, KS 67031
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 - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

JESSIE CATHARINE NEW,

Petitioner,

v.

FDC SEATAC,

Respondent.

Case No. C05-5663RBL

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Hon. Karen L.

Strombom United States Magistrate Judge, 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 petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the reasons set forth in

the Report and Recommendation.

(3) The clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Petitioner, and to the Hon. Karen

L. Strombom.

DATED this 21st day of February, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05663-RBL Document 8 Filed 02/21/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 67088.

protests 61/4787 and 61/4789.

#### A. Zerkowitz & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Abstract 66726. Plaintiff’s application for rehearing denied.
Exhibit 99.1





The First Bancorp Declares Second Quarter Dividend


DAMARISCOTTA, ME--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The First Bancorp (NASDAQ: FNLC), the parent company of First National Bank, today declared a quarterly cash dividend of 34 cents per share.  This second quarter dividend is payable July 22, 2022 to shareholders of record as of July 11, 2022.  The quarterly cash dividend of 34 cents per share is an increase of 2 cents or 6.25% from the 32 cents per share paid in each of the prior four quarters.  Based on the June 29, 2022 closing price of $29.92 per share, the annualized dividend of $1.36 per share translates to a yield of 4.55%.


"The First Bancorp performed very well in 2021 and has continued to do so in 2022 with record earnings reported for the first quarter," remarked President & Chief Executive Officer, Tony C. McKim.  "The Board of Directors is committed to sharing the Company's success with our shareholders, and I'm pleased to do so in the form of an increased cash dividend."


The First Bancorp, headquartered in Damariscotta, Maine, is the holding company for First National Bank. Founded in 1864, the Bank serves Mid-Coast and Down East Maine with eighteen offices in Lincoln, Knox, Hancock, Penobscot, Waldo and Washington Counties. The Bank provides a full range of consumer and commercial banking products and services. First National Wealth Management, a division of First National Bank, provides investment management and trust services from five offices in Lincoln, Knox, Penobscot and Hancock Counties.


Forward-looking and cautionary statements: except for the historical information and discussions contained herein, statements contained in this release may constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements involve a number of risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results and events to differ materially, as discussed in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


Category: Dividends


Source: The First Bancorp





---







The First Bancorp


Richard M. Elder, EVP, Chief Financial Officer


207-563-3195


rick.elder@thefirst.com
From: ddhviste@drtel.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:54:55 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,

Betty Hvistendahl

Ellendale, ND 58436
From: dalmeter12@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:35:44 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,

Tammy Almeter

Strykersville, NY 14145
From: tuscanybound2015@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:28:57 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,

Carmen Camuglia

Laguna Hills, CA 92653
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

DAWN RAYMOND,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

CASE NO. C05-5581JKA

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Plaintiff does not appear to have

funds available to afford the $250.00 filing fee.

The clerk is directed to issue summonses submitted by plaintiff to enable plaintiff to properly serve

copies of the complaint on the appropriate parties. Plaintiff shall note that it is her responsibility to

properly serve copies of the complaint along with appropriate summons as required by Rule 4 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 26TH day of September, 2005.

/s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05581-RJB Document 2 Filed 09/26/05 Page 1 of 1
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 Page 1 ORDER- [C05-1663-RSL]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

MARY M. MURPHY

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant

Civil No. C05-1663-RSL

ORDER

Based on the stipulation of the parties it is hereby ORDERED that the above-captioned

case be remanded for further administrative proceedings. On remand, the Administrative Law

Judge (ALJ) will attempt to clarify the opinion of W. Saunders, M.D. The ALJ will also reassess

the severity of Plaintiff's alleged depression and bipolar disorder; consider Plaintiff's obesity and

resulting limitations in accordance with Social Security Ruling 02-01p; further consider the

opinion of Dr. Hakeman; and reassess Plaintiff's residual functional capacity. The ALJ will also

clarify whether Plaintiff’s work as a transportation technician was performed at

Case 2:05-cv-01663-RSL-MJB Document 22 Filed 05/03/06 Page 1 of 2
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 Page 2 ORDER- [C05-1663-RSL]

the substantial gainful activity level so as to constitute past relevant work, and obtain vocational

expert testimony.

This Court hereby reverses the Commissioner's decision under sentence four of 42 U.S.C.

§ 405(g) with a remand of the cause to the Commissioner for further proceedings. See

Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (1991).

DATED this 3rd day of May, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge 

Recommended for Entry

this 11th day of April, 2006:

 /s/Monica J. Benton 

MONICA J. BENTON

United States Magistrate Judge

Presented by:

s/ CAROL A. HOCH WSB # 9289

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

Attorney for Defendant

Office of the General Counsel

701 Fifth Ave, Ste 2900, M/S 901

Phone: 206-615-2684

Fax: 206-615-2531

carol.a.hoch@ssa.gov

Case 2:05-cv-01663-RSL-MJB Document 22 Filed 05/03/06 Page 2 of 2