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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:07:03 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,

Christopher Wade

Baton Rouge, LA 70817
From: hatfieldta@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:03:24 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,

Alcinda Hatfield

Gainesville, VA 20155
From: dwood6@nycap.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:27:07 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,

Donald Wood

Glenmont, NY 12077
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM REMINGTON
OIL AND GAS CORPORATION'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31,
1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000874992
<NAME> REMINGTON OIL AND GAS CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,671
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,574
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,400
<PP&E>                                         266,792
<DEPRECIATION>                                 171,809
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 113,364
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,075
<BONDS>                                          5,950
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           213
<OTHER-SE>                                      52,830
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   113,364
<SALES>                                          6,389
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,448
<CGS>                                           11,186
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,470
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,656
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,678)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,676)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,676)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.31)
        

</TABLE>
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER RE: PENDING MOTIONS

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

ALLAH,

Petitioner,

v.

KAREN BRUNSON,

Respondent.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C05-1480-MJP-MAT

ORDER RE: PENDING MOTIONS

This a federal habeas action which is proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Currently

pending before the Court are petitioner’s motion for immediate release, petitioner’s two motions

for immediate release and costs and summary judgment, petitioner’s motion pursuant to UCC

RCW 62A.1-204, and respondent’s motion for an extension of time to file an answer to

petitioner’s federal habeas petition.

Each of petitioner’s motions for immediate release asserts essentially the same thing; i.e.,

that respondent has not timely answered petitioner’s federal habeas petition. Petitioner’s motion

pursuant to UCC RCW 62A.1-204 appears to set forth the conditions under which he will accept

respondent’s motion for extension of time. Respondent’s motion for extension of time requests

an extension of time until November 6, 2008, to file her answer to petitioner’s federal habeas

petition because of difficulties counsel has encountered in attempting to obtain the state court

records necessary to adequately respond to petitioner’s federal habeas petition.
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER RE: PENDING MOTIONS

PAGE -2

The Court, having reviewed the parties’ pending motions, and the balance of the record,

does hereby find and ORDER as follows:

(1) Respondent’s motion for an extension of time (Dkt. No. 31) is GRANTED.

Respondent is directed to file and serve her answer to petitioner’s federal habeas petition not later

than November 6, 2008.

(2) Petitioner’s motions for immediate release (Dkt. Nos. 32, 33, and 37) are

STRICKEN. As this Court has determined that respondent’s requested extension is warranted,

petitioner’s motions seeking release from custody based upon respondent’s failure to timely

respond to his federal habeas petition are moot.

(3) Petitioner’s motion pursuant to UCC RCW 62A.1-204 (Dkt. No. 36) is

STRICKEN. Whether or not petitioner elects to accept respondent’s request for extension of time

is not relevant to whether respondent’s motion has merit.

 (4) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to petitioner, to counsel for

respondent, and to the Honorable Marsha J. Pechman.

DATED this 10th day of October, 2008.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge
From: angelaculpepper@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:43:13 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,

Angela Culpepper

Shreveport, LA 71115
|Exhibit 34.3
|------------

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



|The Board of Directors
|----------------------

ING USA Annuity and Life Insurance Company

We have examined managements assertion, included in the accompanying Management Assessment, that ING USA Annuity and Life Insurance Company (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB (Regulation AB) for ING USA Global Funding Trust 6 (the Platform), as of and for the year ended December 31, 2008, except for criteria 1122(d)(1)(i)-(iv), (d)(2)(i)-(vii), (d)(3)(ii)-(iv), and (d)(4)(i)-(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by them with respect to the servicing platform covered by this report. Management is responsible for the Companys compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion about the Companys compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Companys compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of less than all of the individual asset backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Companys compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, managements assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2008 for the ING USA Global Funding Trust 6 Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP



|March 31, 2009
|--------------



|
|

---
AMENDMENT
NO. 2


 


TO



 


AGREEMENT
AND PLAN OF MERGER


 


This
Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement And Plan Of Merger (“Amendment”), dated March 19, 2018, is by and between
Marathon Patent Group Inc., a Nevada corporation with an address 11100 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 380, Los Angeles, California 90025(the
“Company”), Global Bit Acquisition Corp. (“GBAC”) and Global Bit Ventures, Inc., a Nevada Corporation
(“GBV”).


 


WHEREAS,
the parties entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger on November 1, 2017 (the “Merger Agreement”) which
Merger Agreement was amended on January 23, 2018 (the “Original Amendment”) to amongst other things, extend the deadline
to March 15, 2018 subject to consecutive 14 day extensions with written mutual consent; and


 


WHEREAS,
the parties wish to amend the Merger Agreement again as set forth below, with the understanding that all other provisions of the
Merger Agreement shall remain unchanged;


NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto agree as follows:


 


1.
Section 7.01 of the Merger Agreement as amended by Section 6 of the Original Amendment shall be further amended to provide that
the February 28, 2018 termination date, as amended to March 15, 2018 is hereby further extended to March 29, 2018 and shall be
subject to consecutive 14 day extensions with written mutual consent, not to be extended past April 30, 2018, subject to a mutual
agreement to further extension.


 


2.
The terms and conditions of all other sections of the Merger Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of March 19, 2018.


 


[Signature
Page Follows]


 




    	 



    	 	 	 



    

 


[Signature
Page to Amendment No. 2 to Agreement and Plan of Merger]


 


	 	MARATHON
    PATENT GROUP, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    Merrick D. Okamoto 
	 	Name:	Merrick
    D. Okamoto 
	 	Title:
    	Interim
    Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	 
	 	GLOBAL
    BIT ACQUISITION CORP.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    Merrick D. Okamoto 
	 	Name:
    	Merrick
    D. Okamoto
	 	Title:
    	Chief
    Executive Officer 
	 	 	 
	 	GLOBAL
    BIT VENTURES, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    Charles W. Allen 
	 	Name:
    	Charles
    W. Allen
	 	Title:
    	Chief
    Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

KEVIN GREEN,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 478 EAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 18th day of April, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Before the Third Division,

November 19, 1968

No. P68/494.

protest 67/42433 (New York).

#### Roberts, Reilly *&*Sons, Inc. *v.*United States,

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the principles in this case are similar in all material respects to those involved in *International*Expediters, *Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 352, Abstract 57104), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 61532.

#### Bunge Corporation *v.*United States,

protests 302779-K, 302780-K, and 302781-K (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

Plaintiff having raised no objection, the motion was granted on the ground that the protests were prematurely filed.
From: amjadopt@embarqmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:39:19 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,

Jennifer English

Oxford, NJ 07863
BEFORE the Third DIVISION,

March 1, 1967

No. P67/55.

#### Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 272443-K, etc. (Portland, Oreg.).

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise marked “T” covered by the foregoing protests consist of cups and saucers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *W. Kay*Company, *Inc.*v. *United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 130, C.D. 2484), and that the items of merchandise marked “D” covered by the foregoing protests consist of cups and saucers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Baltimore*& *Ohio R.R. Co. a/c United China & Glass Company*(47 CCPA 1, C.A.D. 719), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.