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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:04:30 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,

Shirley Westlie Orlando

Huntington Beach, CA 92647
RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 235 Promenade Street, Providence, R102908-5767 TDD401-222-4462 7 August 2009 David Conroy EPA - New

England, Region I 1 Congress Street, Suite 1100 Boston, MA 02114-2023 Dear Mr. Conroy: The Office of Air Resources (OAR) is hereby submitting the "Rhode Island Regional Haze State Implementation Plan Revision" as a formal revision to the Rhode Island State Implementation Plan (SIP) . SIP Revision addresses Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirements that states that contribute to visibility impairment in one or more Federal Class I Areas (national parks and wilderness areas) prepare plans consistent with the national goal of restoring visibility in those areas to natural conditions. Although Rhode Island does not have any Class I Areas, the EPA has determined that emissions fromsources in the State contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas in nearby states. As required by the EPArule (40 CFR51 .300-309), the proposed SIP revision includes a longtermstrategy with emissions control measures that constitute Rhode Island's share of the emission reductions needed to meet visibility goals in the region. The measures included in Rhode Island's strategy include participation in a regional low-sulfur fuel oil program and, if approved by the Rhode Island General Assembly, adoption of restrictions on outdoorwood boilers. Apublic notice announcing a public comment period and hearing on the proposed adoption of the SIP Revision was published in the Providence Journal-Bulletin on 30 June 2009 . The hearing was held on 30July 2009. The following support documents are included in this submittal package: 1 . ANotice of Public Hearing, Mailing List, and Affidavit ofPublication for the hearing notice, which was published on 30June 2009; 2. Atranscript of the Public Hearing; 3. Acopy of the hearing officer's Decision; and

S~ . " 30%

post-consumer fiber4. A copy ofthe final SIP Revision, including revisions noted in the Decision.

Ifyou have any questions about this submittal, please contact Barbara Morin of my staff at (401) 222-2808 ext . 7012. Very truly yours, Douglas McV

a j , ~ (cting Chief Office ofAir Resources
#### In the Matter of Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., et al., Petitioners, v Town of Riverhead, Respondent.

[631 NYS2d 883]

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review so much of a determination of the respondent Town of Riverhead, dated June 26,1992, as, after a hearing, upheld the denial of emergency personal leave sought by the petitioner Nancy Morrow.

*412Adjudged that the determination is confirmed insofar as reviewed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

Initially, we note that the Supreme Court should have disposed of the proceeding on the merits instead of transferring it to this Court. Because the hearing was "informational”, the determination was not "made as a result of a hearing held, and at which evidence was taken, pursuant to direction by law” (CPLR 7803 [4]; 7804 [g]; *see also, Matter of Department of Envtl. Protection v Department of Envtl. Conservation,*120 AD2d 166). However, this Court will decide the case on the merits in the interest of judicial economy *(see, Matter of 125 Bar Corp. v State Liq. Auth.,*24 NY2d 174, 180).

Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, the respondent’s determination was not arbitrary or capricious since it was rationally based on the facts before it *(see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222, 231). Further, insofar as the petition sought to resolve the parties’ contractual rights, it is well settled that a CPLR article 78 proceeding is not the proper procedural vehicle *(see, Matter of Hertz v Rozzi,*148 AD2d 535, *affd 14*NY2d 702; *Aloi v Board of Educ.,*81 AD2d 874; *Nassau Ch. Civ. Serv. Empls. Assn, v County of Nassau,*154 Misc 2d 545, *affd*203 AD2d 267). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Balletta and Hart, JJ., concur.
Condon

Olex

Arlington

Blalock

GILLIAM COUNTYMORROW COUNTY

SHERMAN CO

GILLIAM CO

WASHINGTON

OREGON

206

206

19

74

19

19

84

84

Columbia

River

John

Day

River

3 0 3 6 Kilometers

3 0 3 6 Miles

W

N

E

S

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

PRINEVILLE DISTRICT

John Day Basin

Resource Management Plan

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2008 No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these 

data for individual or aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from various sources. This 

information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital means 

and may be updated without notification.

Transportation

 Open Existing Road

 Open Road Seasonally 

 Closed Road Year-round 

 Interstate

 State Highway

 County Road

 Private Road, Closed to public

 use or unknown

Off Highway Vehicle Designation

 Open- Motorized Vehicle Use Permitted Off Road

 Closed- Motorized Use Off Roads Probhibited

 Limited- Motorized Vehicle Use Limited

 to Designated Roads and Trails,

 Seasonally, or by Type of Vehicle

 Seasonal Motor Vehicle Restrictions

LEGEND

206

84

19

Planning Area Boundary

Administered Land

 Bureau of Land Management

 Other Federal

 State

 Private or Other

* Note: Access to some areas listed as open may require

 landowner permission to cross private lands

OREGON

Prineville 

District John Day Basin

Planning Area

Map Area

M07-09-01: 9-5-08

T

4

S

T

3

S

T

2

S

T

1

S

T

1

N

T

2

N

T

3

N

T

5

S

T

4

S

T

3

S

T

2

S

T

1

S

T

1

N

T

2

N

T

3

N

T

5

S

R 17 E R 18 E R 19 E R 20 E R 21 E R 22 E R 23 E

R 17 E R 18 E R 19 E R 20 E R 21 E R 22 E R 23 E

Map 12A: Existing Travel Management and Off Highway

Vehicle Designations - Lower John Day
From: madseninms@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:16:52 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am totally opposed to the federal government being involved in health care. It is unconstitutional and

destructive to the well-being of the health care delivery in this country.

I am writing today in regards to the mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be

covered by private health insurance with no co-pay to patients. I strongly oppose the government

forcing insurance coverage on Americans. This is particularly onerous because there are some who hold

religious views that oppose contraception and there are many more that oppose abortion (which some

"contraceptives" actually are) for a variety of reasons.

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,

Carolyn Madsen

Starkville, MS 39759
Order entered October 2 3 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 00657
- CV ANGELA NAILS, Appellant

V. MARK FRELS, Appellee On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 13
- 15238



### O RDER Asserting a copy of the reporter’s record mailed to her belongs to an unrelated appeal, appellant moves to strike the record and for an extension of time to file an amended brief

. Because the reporter’s record filed in this appeal rel ates to this appeal, we DENY appellant’s motion to strike. We GRANT appellant’s extension request to the extent that we ORDER appellant to file her amended brief no later than November 3 , 2014. Appellant is cautioned that failure to comply may result in d ismissal of the appeal without further notice.

/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
2•'.63 

## PM / 09/13/12 Accrual Basis

ASSETS 

## Underhill Holding LLC 

# Balance Sheet As of December 31, 2012

Current Assets Checking/Savings Chase- (1117) Chase· Maint (1125) Total Checking/Savings Total Current Assets Fixed Assets Cessna Accumulated Depr- Cessna Cessna

- Other Total Cessna Piper Accumulated Depr
- Piper Piper· Other Total Piper Total Fixed Assets OtherAssets Closing Costs Accumulated Amort -Closing Cos Closing Costs

- Other Total Closing Costs Investment
- LIMA Investments Security Deposit Shareholder Loans Total OtherAssets TOTALASSETS LIABILITIES & EQUITY Liabilities Current Liabilities Other Current Liabilities Loan Payable •Tomkiel & Tomkie Total Other Current Liabilities Total Current Liabilities Long Term Liabilities Loan Payable
- First Bank#1 Loan Payable First Bank #2 Total Long Term Liabilities Total Liabilities Equity Partner
- Andrew Partner
- Melissa Net Income Total Equity TOTAL LIABILITIES & EQUITY Dec 31,12

19,509.73 296.13 19,805.86 19,805.86

-216,857.15 1,308,000.00 1,091,142.85 -41,421.47 294,851.42 253,429.95 1,344,572.80

-721.50 7,215.00 6,493.50 114,437.50

5,058.75 7,750.00 10,326.50 144,066.25 1,508,444.91

20,710.97 20,710.97 20,710.97 283,157.27 170,317.12 453,474.39 474,185.36 1,084,325.14

-86,299.28 36,233.69 1,034,259.55 1,508,444.91 

# UNAUDITED

. 

### ,,· 

# lllllit ;: 

## . ; :

## ''·**··~.**

.; . 

### ::.:. Page 1

### ~:52 PM 09/13/12 Accrual Basis

.

## ·:: 

## Underhill Holding LLC 

# Profit 

# &Loss Januarythrough August 2012

Ordinary Income/Expense Income Fees Total Income Expense

Advertising Bank Service Charges Charteroutsource Equipment Lease Fuel/Parts Insurance Interest Expense Landing Fees Licenses and Permits Merchant Bank Fees Office Supplies Operating Expenses Outside Labor Parking Expense Payroll Pilot Fees Postage and Delivery Professional Fees Rent Repairs Telephone Tie Down Travel & Ent Uniforms Total Expense Net Ordinary Income Net Income Jan -Aug 12



### 608,745.25 608,745.25

6,400.14

440.99 20,532.00 26,587.00 15,248.22 21,850.76 22,414.93

4,535.20

300.00 3,846.67 2,702.51 275,550.27

13,332.01 73.25 58,163.34 46,363.10 338.52 24,626.97

2,148.00 12,777.00

1'140.18

825.00 10,804.53

1,435.97 572,436.56

36,308.69 36,308.69

Page 1
From: orossi@juno.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:17:05 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,

Olivia Rossi

Lake Oswego, OR 97034
No. 69234.

#### Chin Cheng Co. *v.*United States,

protest 64/2385.

Protest dismissed February 17, 1965.

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
No. 60519.

#### Barian Shipping Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 296804-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that if the certificate of exportation had been filed prior to the liquidation of the entry or the expiration of the collector’s review period provided for in section 515, the merchandise would have been liquidated free of duty under paragraph 1615, as amended, *supra.*In view of the stipulation and following Abstract 57104, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**Exhibit 32**

** **

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

I, Marc Angell, Principal Executive Officerand Principal Financial Officer of Music of Your Life, Inc. (the “Company”) certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed the annual report on Form10-K of the Company;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisannual report; and

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the period presented in this annual report.

 

Date: September 13, 2013

 

/s/ Marc Angell	

Marc Angell

Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed November 2, 2015.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-15-00775-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF D.P.B AND D.Z.B., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-05-12682

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Lang-Miers, Brown, and Schenck

Opinion by Justice Lang-Miers

Appellant has filed a motion stating she has elected to dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See id.

150775F.P05

/Elizabeth Lang-Miers/

ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF D.P.B AND D.Z.B., 

CHILDREN

No. 05-15-00775-CV 

On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-05-12682.

Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers. 

Justices Brown and Schenck participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellee Derrick Battie recover his costs, if any, of this appeal from 

appellant Yanika M. Daniels.

Judgment entered this 2nd day of November, 2015.
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.27
By Hand Delivery




March 14, 2018
Par  Technology Corporation
8383 Seneca Turnpike New Hartford, NY 13492
P 800.448.6505
www.partech.com


Mr. Donald H. Foley 10919 Martingale Court Potomac, Maryland 20854


Re:    Offer Letter;Amendment
 
Dear Don,
Your Offer Letter dated April 12, 2017 is amended to provide that shares of restricted stock granted to you as payment of 25% of your STI award for 2017 (as described in your Offer Letter), shall vest 100% on April 11, 2018; provided, in the event of a Change of Control or your death, all unvested shares of restricted stock shall immediately vest.


Except as amended hereby, all other terms and provisions of your Offer Letter remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
        
Sincerely,
/s/ Cathy King          
Cathy A. King, Vice President
and General Counsel
Accepted and Agreed to:
/s/ Donald H. Foley           
Donald H. Foley
Dated: 3/14/18
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 TAXATION OF COSTS -- 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

FANAYE TURNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON and

BUDDY RATNER,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-1575RSL

TAXATION OF COSTS

Having considered briefs in support of, and in opposition to, the cost bill herein, costs in the cause

indicated above are hereby taxed against PLAINTIFF FANAYE TURNER , and on behalf of

DEFENDANTS in the amount of $6,818.55 as follows:

Requested Disallowed Allowed

I. SERVICE COSTS $170.00 $170.00 0

Miscellaneous service costs are not taxable.

II. DEPOSITION COSTS $3,196.50 0 $3,196.50

Clerk allowed all costs associated with deposition actually used at trial.

III. COPY COSTS $964.91 0 $964.91

Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 89 Filed 01/18/08 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

Requested Disallowed Allowed

TAXATION OF COSTS -- 2

IV. WITNESS FEES $3,789.27 $1,167.13 $2,622.14

Clerk allowed for $216.00 per day when overnight stay was required and $64.00 for the travel day

home. The total of six nights stay for the witnesses was authorized.

V. OTHER COSTS $35.00 0 $35.00

Dated this 18th day of JANUARY, 2008 .

A

Bruce Rifkin

Clerk, U.S. District Court

Case 2:05-cv-01575-RSL Document 89 Filed 01/18/08 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 412 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 412

 Expressing gratitude to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and His Royal 
 Highness, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, for their State Visit to 
 the United States and reaffirming the friendship that exists between 
               the United States and the United Kingdom.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 17, 2007

 Mr. Boozman submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing gratitude to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and His Royal 
 Highness, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, for their State Visit to 
 the United States and reaffirming the friendship that exists between 
               the United States and the United Kingdom.

Whereas Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and His Royal Highness Prince Philip, 
        Duke of Edinburgh, traveled to the United States for a State Visit from 
        May 3 to May 8, 2007, celebrating the special relationship that exists 
        between the United States and the United Kingdom;
Whereas the United States and the United Kingdom enjoy a trans-Atlantic 
        friendship sustained by a commitment to democratic traditions, liberty, 
        and the spread of freedom, as well as common economic and cultural 
        foundations;
Whereas in a rapidly changing world, Queen Elizabeth II has been a force of 
        stability and constancy and has provided inspiration to the world in 
        times both peaceful and tumultuous;
Whereas Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip serve as ambassadors for the 
        British people and the goodwill engendered by their visit serves as a 
        reminder, for the people of the United States and the United Kingdom 
        alike, of our joint values and priorities;
Whereas the United Kingdom, like the United States, has suffered loss of life on 
        its own shores from terrorist elements; and
Whereas thousands of British troops today fight side-by-side with United States 
        forces on the War on Terror's most dangerous battlefields: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives is deeply appreciative 
of the State Visit recently conducted by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 
and His Royal Highness, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, and 
celebrates the State Visit as having been an occasion to reaffirm the 
value and depth of the friendship that exists between the United States 
and the United Kingdom.
                                 <all>
```
No. 66529.

#### Joseph H. Brown & Son *v.*United States,

protests 60/25107, etc. (El Paso).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of horsemeat similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 66197, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.