alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: bunchobergers@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:28:19 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,

Melanie Berger

Houston, TX 77040
No. 67544.

#### S. Bernard Schwartz, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 61/6229 (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the actual copper content in the brass rods in issue was 61.14 percent rather than 68.3 percent, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained, and the collector was directed to reliquidate the entry accordingly.
From: rickmontrose@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:38:51 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,

Rick Montrose

Chesapeake, VA 23320
From: jrbeck@citlink.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:39:42 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,

REX BECKER

Kingman, AZ 86401
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report (the
Report) on the Form 10-K of Oryon Holdings, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Thomas P. Schaeffer, Chief Executive
Officer and Director, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

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

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

Date: March 7, 2013



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ Thomas P. Schaeffer             
|Thomas P. Schaeffer                 
|Chief Executive Officer and Director
EXHIBIT 32.1





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



In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Osteotech,  Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended  September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Richard W. Bauer,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:

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

(2)  The information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





                                         /s/Richard W. Bauer
                                         Richard W. Bauer
                                         Chief Executive Officer
                                         November 9, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>


        

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF VIROGROUP,  INC. FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED NOVEMBER 30,
1996,  AND  IS  QUALIFIED  IN  ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO  SUCH  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                              40
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,471
<ALLOWANCES>                                       492
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,278
<PP&E>                                           2,591
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,091
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,504
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,777
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            64
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,278
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,504
<SALES>                                          2,695
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,695
<CGS>                                            1,910
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,910
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,106
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  43
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (331)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (331)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (331)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.05)

        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

BRYAN SUHOSKEY,

Petitioner

v.

LANKENAU HOSPITAL, LANKENAU

HEART GROUP AND SCOTT M.

GOLDMAN, M.D.,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 613 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 27th day of April, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
No. 62747.

#### Aeolian Shipping Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 243062-K, etc. (New York).

*280Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of olives in brine similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Moscahlades Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 127, C. D. 1917), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: stingler@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:10:37 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,

Stephen Tingler

Bolingbrook, IL 60440
From: peacockwh@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:15:51 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the 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. Non-life threating coverage should not be mandated.

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,

William Peacock

Glen Burnie, MD 21061
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Osteotech, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard W. Bauer,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

      (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.


                                                  /S/ Richard W. Bauer
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Richard W. Bauer
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
                                                  (Principal Executive Officer)
                                                  April 23, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or any
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
ttoo-ex1040_512.htm




			
	
 
	
 
	
EXHIBIT 10.40




 

AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO COMMERCIAL LEASE BETWEEN

COLUMBUS DAY REALTY, INC., AND T2 BIOSYSTEMS, INC.

 

This Amendment No. 2 is to a Commercial Lease dated May 6, 2013, by and between Columbus Day Realty, Inc. (LESSOR), and T2 Biosystems, Inc. (LESSEE), which lease relates to the premises at 231 Andover Street, Wilmington, Massachusetts.

 

WHEREAS, the Commercial Lease is dated May 6, 2013;

 

WHEREAS, the parties signed Amendment No. 1 to the Commercial Lease on September 24, 2013;

 

WHEREAS, the parties are desirous of amending the Commercial Lease for the purpose of extending the term of the Lease to December 31, 2017;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with the covenants, considerations and conditions contained herein, the parties agree to further amend the Commercial Lease as follows:

 

3. TERM.

 

This paragraph of the Commercial Lease is hereby amended by extending the expiration date to December 31, 2017.

 

25. OPTION TO EXTEND.

 

In substitution for the Option to Extend which was granted to the LESSEE in this said Paragraph 25 of the Commercial Lease, the parties agree that the term of the Lease shall be extended to December 31, 2017. This extension shall be on the same terms and conditions as the original Lease, as changed by Amendment No. 1, and the

 


			
	
 
	
 
	
 




 




			
	
 
	
 
	
 




 

base rent for the remainder of the term shall continue at the rate of Nine Dollars ($9.00) per square foot.

 

This extension replaces the Option to Extend in the original Commercial Lease and the parties agree that that option shall now be considered null and void.

 

Except as modified by this Amendment, all other terms of the Commercial Lease and Amendment No. 1 shall remain in full force and effect for the remaining term of the Lease.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the LESSOR and LESSEE have set their hands and seals this 21st day of September, 2015.

 

COLUMBUS DAY REALTY, INC.T2 BIOSYSTEMS, INC.

 

By:  _[Illegible]____________________By:  /s/ Michael Gibbs_____

 

Its PresidentIts Senior Corporate Counsel

 

By:  __[Illegible]____________________

 

Its Treasurer
Exhibit 99.2




Certification of Chief Executive Officer
 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
 and Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b)
 
 
 
 My name is Crystal Coranesand I am the President and Chief Executive Officer of Eaglecrest Resources, Inc. (the “Company”).
 
 I hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 that to the best of my knowledge and belief:
 
 (1)
the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on xxxxxxxxx (“Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended; and
 
 (2)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of Eaglecrest Resources, Inc. as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report.
  CRYSTAL CORANES
 Crystal Coranes
 President and Chief Executive Officer
 Eaglecrest Resources, Inc.
 
 Date:  April 26, 2010
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

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

DONNA MAE LEITNER, fka DONNA

MAE CASTLE-EBRIGHT,

 Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN E. POTTER and UNITED STATES

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-5674RBL

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or

Transfer Due to Lack of Proper Venue [Dkt. #17]. Having considered the entirety of the records and file

herein, the Court finds and rules as follows:

On or about October 13, 2005 plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court alleging that her employer,

the United States Postal Service (“USPS”), and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(“EEOC”) discriminated against her due to her disability in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964. Due to no one person’s fault, this Complaint was not properly served until December, 2007. On

March 18, 2008, the EEOC was dismissed as a defendant.

Ms. Leitner alleges that while she was employed at the USPS in Lansing, Michigan she was

discriminated against due to a disability. Thus, her allegations are more properly governed by the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§701, et. seq.; Johnson v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1420 (9th Cir.

1989). The specific venue provisions of Title VII have been incorporated into the Rehabilitation Act,
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 - 2

Bolar v. Frank, 938 F.2d 377 (2nd Cir. 1991), and are mandatory. Johnson v. Payless Drugstores

Northwest, Inc., 950 F.2d 586, 587 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Bolar, 938 F.2d at 379). 

Venue in discrimination cases is controlled by 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(3) which provides in relevant

part:

[A]n action may be brought in any judicial district in the State in which the

unlawful employment practice is alleged to have been committed, in the

judicial district in which the employment records relevant to such practice

are maintained and administered, or in the judicial district in which the

aggrieved person would have worked but for the alleged unlawful

employment practice....

The mandatory nature of this provision means that because Ms. Leitner worked at the USPS in Lansing,

Michigan and her employment records are maintained there, venue is only proper in Michigan, and not in

this Court.

The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or Transfer Due to Lack of Proper Venue [Dkt. #17] is

GRANTED insofar as transfer is requested. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court

for the Western District of Michigan.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 11th day of March, 2009.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE