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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:04:18 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,

Paul Toledo

Redondo Beach, CA 90277
FINAL JUDGMENT - 1 

Case No. CV05-1534 

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT SEATTLE 

U.S. BANK, N.A., 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

ENTERTAINER, Official No. 627953, their 

Engines, Machinery, Appurtenances, etc., 

In Rem; 

and 

FIRST CAPITAL PARTNERS, LTD., and 

S. HILTON SMITH, 

In Personam, 

 Defendants. 

 IN ADMIRALTY 

Case No. CV05-1534C 

FINAL JUDGMENT 

FINAL JUDGMENT

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion For Final 

Judgment (Dkt. No. 41). Based on the motion, the declaration of John E. Casperson, and 

exhibits attached thereto, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

Case 2:05-cv-01534-JCC Document 47 Filed 11/07/06 Page 1 of 2
FINAL JUDGMENT - 2 

Case No. CV05-1534 

U.S. Bank, N.A. shall have judgment against First Capital Partners, Ltd. and S. 

Hilton Smith in the amount of $ 240,449.94, together with interest after April 26, 2006, 

as prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1961. 

DATED this 7th day of November, 2006. AJOHN C. COUGHENOUR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:05-cv-01534-JCC Document 47 Filed 11/07/06 Page 2 of 2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JODI C. PIERCE, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Defendant - Appellee. No. 12-35788 D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00105-RFC
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Richard F. Cebull, Senior District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted February 3, 2014 Seattle, Washington Before: FISHER, GOULD and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Jodi C. Pierce appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, upholding the denial of her application for disability in surance benefits and supplemental security income. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S .C. § 1291, and we affirm in part and reverse and remand in part. 

# FILED
MAR 21 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.1. The ALJ articulated germane reasons for giving little weight to the opinion of Pierce’s counselor, Timothy Dove. See Molina v. Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012). The ALJ adopted the opinion of the medical expert because she was the only acceptable medical source who reviewed Pierce’s entire medical record. The ALJ permissibly rejected Dove’s opinion because it was inconsistent with Dove’s treatment notes and care plan and because its extreme characterization of Pierce’s limitations was not supported by the medical record. See id. at 1112; Turner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. , 613 F.3d 1217, 1224 (9th Cir. 2010). Pierce’s inability to afford altern ative mental health treatment does not invalidate this conclusion. 2. The ALJ did not give sufficiently specific, clear and convincing reasons for discrediting Pierce’s testimony regarding the number of days she is debilitated by depression or a manic episode. See Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin. , 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006). Her testim ony that she is debilitated several days per month would, if credited, establish th at she is disabled. The ALJ apparently rejected this testimony because it was not supported by the medical record, but an ALJ may not disregard a claimant’s testimony on this basis when the testimony concerns the severity of symptoms that her underlying impairment could reasonably be expected to cause. See id. at 883-84. The other reasons the ALJ
2offered also were not sufficiently specific to Pierce’s testimony regarding the severity of this symptom. See Vasquez v. Astrue , 572 F.3d 586, 591-92 (9th Cir. 2009). We decline to apply the “credit-as -true” rule in this case and reverse and remand with instructions to remand to th e agency for further determinations on an open record regarding how often Pierce is debilitated by depression or a manic episode. See Connett v. Barnhart , 340 F.3d 871, 876 (9th Cir. 2003). The ALJ may take more evidence if it would be useful, but is not required to do so. 3. The remainder of the ALJ’s adverse credibility determination is affirmed. Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART.

3
pbsv_ex101.htm


EXHIBIT 10.1


 





 



EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT


 


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT (this "Amendment"), effective as of January 1, 2013, by and among Pharma-Bio Serv, Inc. with its principal office at 6 Road 696, Dorado, Puerto Rico 00646 (the “Company”), and Pedro J.  Lasanta (“Executive”) (both hereinafter “the Parties”).


 


W I T N E S S E T H:


 


WHEREAS, the Company and Executive have entered into that certain Employment Agreement, dated November 5, 2007, as such Employment Agreement has been and may be amended, restated or otherwise modified from time to time (the "Employment Agreement").  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to such terms in the Employment Agreement; and


 


WHEREAS, the Company desires to modify the Executive's salary.


 


NOW THEREFORE,  for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:


 



	
1.  

	
The Executive's salary pursuant to paragraph 3(a) of the Employment Agreement is hereby modified and amended so as to increase Executive's annual salary, as of January 1, 2013, to $150,000 per annum.  Salary shall be paid in such installments as the Company regularly pays its executive officers, but not less frequently than semi-monthly.  Executive's salary will be revised annually based upon performance evaluations following the Company's performance review process and subject to the financial status of the Company.








	
2.  

	
Except as expressly amended by the terms of this Amendment and all prior amendments to the Employment Agreement, the terms of the Employment Agreement shall remain in effect and are unchanged by this Amendment.







 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment in Dorado, Puerto Rico, this 31st day of December, 2012.


 



	
PHARMA-BIO SERV, INC.


By:  /s/ Elizabeth Plaza

	  	
EXECUTIVE:


/s/ Pedro Lasanta


	
Name: Elizabeth Plaza

	  	
Name: Pedro Lasanta


	
Title: President, CEO and Director

	  	
Title: Chief Financial Officer
1 The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation.
2 The Honorable Michael J. Melloy, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. ___________ No. 96-3109

___________ Moore Business Forms, Inc., * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. Glenda K. Wilson; Michael D. * Wilson, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellants. *

___________ Submitted: December 12, 1996 Filed: December 30, 1996

___________ Before BOWMAN and HEANEY, Circuit Judges, and STROM, 1 District Judge.

PER CURIAM. Defendants Glenda K. Wilson and Michael D. Wilson appeal from an order of the District Court 2 granting a preliminary injunction in favor of plaintiff Moore Business Forms, Inc. The order enjoins defendants from violating restrictive covenants in their employment agreements. The District Court determined that a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendants from selling business forms and related products was warranted as to several key accounts, but not as to other less significant accounts. We have read all of the materials submitted by the parties and have considered their arguments. We conclude that the order of the-2- District Court is solidly grounded in the law of Iowa, which governs the validity and enforceability of the restrictive covenants at issue in this case, and that the court, having carefully considered the Dataphase factors, see Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C L Systems, Inc. , 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th Cir. 1981) (en banc), did not abuse its discretion in entering a preliminary injunction in favor of Moore. Because an opinion by this Court would add nothing of substance to the District Court's analysis of the case, we affirm without further discussion on the basis of that court's thorough and well-reasoned opinion. The Wilsons argue that Moore should be required to give security. The District Court is directed to consider the matter and to exercise its discretion as to whether Moore should be required to post bond.

AFFIRMED. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<PAGE>


                                  Exhibit 99.2



                 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

                             Chief Financial Officer

         The undersigned, as the chief financial officer of Allied Healthcare
         Products, Inc. (the "Company") does hereby certify for purposes of 18
         U.S.C. ss.1350 that (i) the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-K for
         the Company's fiscal quarter ending September 30, 2002 (the "Report"),
         as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14,
         2002, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
         the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) information contained in
         the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
         financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and
         for the periods covered in the Report.


                              s/       Daniel C. Dunn
                                -------------------------
                                       Daniel C. Dunn, Chief Financial Officer



                                       November 14, 2002
From: srhrdy@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:57:07 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,

Sarah Hardy

Vero Beach, FL 32960
1 The Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United St ates District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-3812

___________ Tanya Boyd Harper, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Western District of Arkansas. * Brookshire Grocery Company, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: November 8, 2006 Filed: November 14, 2006

___________ Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Tanya Boyd Harper appeals from the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment. In this diversity action, Harp er claimed that Brookshire Grocery Company wrongfully discharged her, defamed her, and committed th e tort of outrage against her.-2- Upon de novo review, see Dennen v. City of Duluth , 350 F.3d 786, 790 (8th Cir. 2003), we find the district court’s analysis to be correct, thorough, and well-reasoned. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
No. 63336.

protests 58/14920, etc. (New York).

#### Capitol Distributors Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
November 8, 2011

Ms. Andrea R. Fraser Deputy County Attorney Lee County Board of County Commissioners

P.O. Box 398 Fort Myers, FL 33902-0398

Dear Ms. Fraser:

This is in response to your July 25, 2011 letter (public docket No. FAA-2011-0813) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration on behalf of Lee County Board of County Commissioners (Lee County) for an exemption from § 119.69(a)(1) and (2) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Lee County to combine the management positions of Chief Pilot and Director of Operations required by § 119.69 into one position.

After review of Lee County’s operations speci fications, the FAA finds that a grant of exemption is not appropriate. A deviation has been granted in Operations Specification A005(c) that substantiates combining both management positions in accordance with

14 CFR.

Because the relief you seek is covered under deviation authority, we will take no further action on your petition.

Sincerely,

/s/ Ida M. Klepper Manager, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division
From: nlzapel@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:34:21 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,

Nancy Strobel

Dunbar, WV 25064
From: wilsonfirstfruits@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:55:34 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,

Ramona Wilson

South Bend, IN 46614
rAA -2DIO-OI'1Lj

Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response

National Business Aircraft Association Eli CoUi VI'IOB

"lzglCR -

Regional Airline Association Dave Lottercr 1-1/'1~O;: -- ~1z-5o-q

A.ircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman z!l~/o8 -- "'1-'i1m

ATA Craig Fabiall 1-/"'1H -- 4/,'0-';'"

ATA 1\1lopez 1-/M"'I

'1/u(lOq -

09/29/06
From: Amanda Czerniawski

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

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

To Whom it May Concern,

As an Assistant Professor of Sociology who teaches courses on gender and human

sexuality, I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no copays under the Affordable Care Act. 

As a feminist, this proposal does NOT help men and women achieve equal standing

in American society. This proposal only facilitates the existing discrimination against

women because they can get pregnant. Equality is NOT achieved by doling out

contraceptives. Equality is achieved by supporting women with children in the

workforce through a variety of methods such as a federally mandated paid maternity

leave or subsidized child care options. The ultimate solution should be geared

towards helping families, not eliminating them. Americans should not be forced to

pay for a service (i.e., contraceptives) that perpetuates gender discrimination.

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,

Amanda Czerniawski, Ph.D.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
DORIS H. MAYO, Claimant

- Appellant

v.

ROBERT WILKIE, SECRETARY OF VETERAN S 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

______________________

K ENNETH M. C ARPENTER
, Law Offices of Carpenter Chartered, Topeka, KS, argued for claimant

- appellant.

R EBECCA S ARAH K RUSER
, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent

- appellee. Also represented by M ARTIN F. H OCKEY
, J R
., R OBERT E DWARD K IRSCHMAN
, J R

. , C HAD A. R EADLER ; C HRISTOPHER O. A DELOYE
, Y. K EN L EE , Office of General Counsel,United States Department of Veterans Affairs , Washin gton, DC.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (C HEN
, M AYER
, and B RYSON
, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

October 3, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court