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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:19:06 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Margaret Baker

Hudsonville, MI 49426
| Skip to Content*Release Date: June 6, 2013*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical data | Technical Q&AsCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**F.1 Total Credit Market Borrowing and Lending 1** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 4, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 68564]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21911]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Notice of Public Meeting of the Minnesota Advisory Committee; 
Cancellation

AGENCY: Commission on Civil Rights.

ACTION: Notice; cancellation of briefing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commission on Civil Rights published a notice in the 
Federal Register concerning a briefing of the Minnesota Advisory 
Committee. The briefing, scheduled for Friday, November 10, 2023, at 
1:00 p.m. CT, has been cancelled. The notice is in the Federal Register 
on Thursday, September 14, 2023, in FR Document Number 2023-19915 on 
page 63063.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Liliana Schiller, Support Services 
Specialist, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#137f60707b7a7f7f76615366607070613d747c65"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0e627d6d666762626b7c4e7b7d6d6d7c20696178">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: September 28, 2023.
David Mussatt,
Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
[FR Doc. 2023-21911 Filed 10-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 10, 2014

p1203 

# Order

Clerk December 10, 2014

149622

ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND

CONTR ACTORS,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 149622

COA: 313684

Ingham CC: 12

- 000406

- CZ

CITY OF LANSING,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 27, 2014

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall

include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether Attorney General, ex rel. Lennane v

City of Detroit , 225 Mich 631 (1923), should be overruled; and (2) what authority , if any,

enabled defendant to enact its prevailing wage ordinance.

The Michigan Building and Construction Trades Council and the Michigan State

AFL

- CIO are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in

the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission

to file briefs amicus curiae.
(R.D. 11519)

#### Kurt Orban Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 29904.

*857(Decided May 2, 1968)

*Sharretts, Paley, Garter & Blauvelt*for the plaintiff.

*Edwin L. Weisl, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

LaNdis, Judge:

Tlnis appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision on the following stipulation of counsel for the parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States that the merchandise covered by the above enumerated appeal consists of steel wire rods exported from Japan on or about December 17, 1965, and that said merchandise is not on the list of products published in T.D. 54521 from which the application -of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (P.L. 927, 84th Congress, Second Session), is withheld.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the price at the time of exportation to the United States of the instant merchandise at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold, or in the absence of sales offered for sale in the principal markets of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities, and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of -all containers of whatever nature and all other expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, was $86 per metric ton, net packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the instant appeal is submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of facts, I find and hold that export value, as defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (T.D. 54165), is the proper basis for determining value of the steel wire rods covered by the entry in this appeal for reappraisement and that such value is $86 per metric ton, net packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 12.2

 

**Certification**

 

I, Julie Zhili Sun, certify that:

 

1.	I have reviewed this annual reporton Form 20-F of China Mass Media Corp. (the “Company”);

 

2.	Basedon my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report;

 

3.	Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report;

 

4.	TheCompany’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:

 

(a)	Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)	Designedsuch internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under oursupervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financialstatements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

 

(c)	Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and

 

(d)	Disclosedin this annual report any change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the periodcovered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and

 

5.	TheCompany’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

 

(a)	Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and

 

(b)	Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: April 30, 2012
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

MARCH 9, 2011

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-16392

________________________

D. C. Docket Nos. 09-21903-CV-CMA, 06-15417 BKC-RA

In Re: MYRON ORLINSKY

Debtor.

__________________________________________________________________

PETER PATRAKA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MYRON ORLINSKY,

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(March 9, 2011)

Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Appellant sued appellee in state court and obtained a $6 million dollar

judgment which was appealed without a supersedeas bond. Apparently a business

arrangement had gone sour and, thus, this conflict arose between brothers-in-law. 

While the matter was on appeal appellant attempted to execute the judgment with

no success. He then filed a petition for involuntary bankruptcy against appellee. 

During the pendency of the bankruptcy case, the state court judgment was

reversed. The Bankruptcy Court, sua sponte, dismissed the bankruptcy

proceeding. Appellee then sought costs and attorneys’ fees which were granted

pursuant to Section 303(i)(1) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. This was done by way

of an oral ruling delivered after a hearing before the Bankruptcy Judge.

On appeal to the United States District Court, appellant urged reversal on

multiple grounds. The District Court reviewed the matter in detail and entered a

very comprehensive order affirming the ruling by the Bankruptcy Court. After

reviewing the briefs and record and hearing the argument of counsel, we affirm the

ruling of the Bankruptcy Court for the reasons set forth in the ORDER of the

District Court dated December 8, 2009.

AFFIRMED.

2
No. 67585.

#### International Granite & Marble Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 59/27023(A), etc. (Los Angeles).

*261Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of polished marble slabs similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Selectile Co., Inc., Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., of L. A., et al.*(49 CCPA 116, C.A.D. 805), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
---

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION 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 of Baby Fox International,
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2010 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Ping Chen, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350 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.



|Dated: September 28, 2010 | By: | /s/ Ping Chen                
|------------------------- | --- | -----------------------------
|                          |     | Ping Chen                    
|                          |     | Vice President of Finance    
|                          |     | (Principal Financial Officer)

---
No. 64541.

#### Vanguard Recording Society, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 59/2066, etc. (New York).

*273Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of recording tapes similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Electric & Musical Industries (US), Ltd.*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. 87, C.D. 2070), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: � Mineral resources of the Nabesna-White RiverDistrict, Alaska**
 
Report | Plates: OneTwo
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:417
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000958794
 
August 1, 2018fe
Exhibit 10.49


 


ADDENDUM 


TO 


STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT


 


This Addendum, dated January
4, 2018, to the ‘Stock Purchase Agreement’ (“Addendum”) is an addendum to the Stock Purchase Agreement
by and amongst Seven Stars Cloud Group, Inc, (“Purchaser”) Delaware Board of Trade Holdings, Inc. (“Company”),
and Atlantic Bridge Investments, LLC, DBOT-I LLC., Michael J. Ramone, and Dennis Toner (collectively referred to as the “Sellers”).
The parties shall be referred to individually, or collectively as the “Parties”.


 


WHEREAS, in the Stock Purchase
Agreement, Sellers proposed to sell to Purchaser certain shares of Sellers’ shares of Company’s stock in exchange for
shares of Purchaser’s common stock as described in Schedule A and Schedule B;


 


WHEREAS, the Parties wish
to add language explicitly describing the share calculations in Schedule A and Schedule B: the consideration for the Stock Purchase
Agreement shall be equal to the number of shares of the Company’s Common Stock issued and outstanding multiplied by the quotient
of $1.92 divided by the price per share of the Investor’s common stock valued at $3.00 per share;


 


THEREFORE, the Parties
hereby agree to include the abovementioned language to the Stock Purchase Agreement.


 


Except as expressly provided
in this Addendum, all other terms, conditions, and provisions of the Stock Purchase Agreement shall continue in force and effect.
The Stock Purchase Agreement, as modified by this Addendum, contains the full and complete understanding between the Parties and
supersedes all prior negotiations and understandings of the parties, and no modification of any provision hereof will be valid
unless in a signed writing.


 




    	 	 	 



     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed
as of the date set forth above.


 


	SEVEN STARS CLOUD GROUP, INC.	 
	 	 	 
	 	/s/ Robert G. Benya	 
	 	 	 
	By:	Robert G.
    Benya	 
	Its:	President and Chief
    Revenue Officer	 
	 	 	 
	DELAWARE BOARD OF TRADE HOLDINGS, INC.	 
	 	 	 
	 	/s/ John F. Wallace	 
	 	 	 
	By:	John F. Wallace	 
	Its:	Chairman	 
	 	 	 
	ATLANTIC BRIDGE INVESTMENTS, LLC	 
	 	 	 
	 	/s/ John Albert Guadalupe	 
	 	 	 
	By:	Jose Albert Guadalupe	 
	Its:	Director	 
	 	 	 
	DBOT-I LLC	 
	 	 	 
	 	/s/ John Hynansky	 
	 	 	 
	By:	John Hynansky	 
	Its:	Manager	 
	 	 	 
	 	/s/ Michael J. Ramone	 
	 	 	 
	Michael J. Ramone	 
	 	 	 
	 	/s/ Dennis Toner	 
	 	 	 
	Dennis Toner
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

STEPHEN ALAN KELLOGG,

Plaintiff,

v.

WESTERN STATE HOSPITAL, et al,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5268RJB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local MJR 3 and 4. This matter comes before the court on plaintiff’s filing of an

application to proceed in forma pauperis and a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To file a

complaint and initiate legal proceedings plaintiff must pay a filing fee of $250.00 or file a proper

application to proceed in forma pauperis.

On April 13, 2005, the clerk received plaintiff’s complaint and application to proceed in forma

pauperis. (Dkt. #1). Local Rule CR 3(b) provides in relevant part:

At the time application is made under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 or other applicable acts of

Congress, for leave to commence any civil action or to file any petition or motion without

being required to prepay fees and costs or give security for them, each petitioner, movant

or plaintiff shall:

(1) Complete the in forma pauperis affidavit approved for use in this district; and

(2) File a written consent that the recovery, if any, in the action, to such amount as

the court may direct, shall be paid to the clerk who may pay therefrom all unpaid fees and

costs taxed against the plaintiff, and to his attorney the amount which the court allows or

approves as compensation for the attorney’s services.

Case 3:05-cv-05268-RJB Document 3 Filed 05/09/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 2

Plaintiff, however, has not submitted the written consent required by Local Rule CR 3(b)(2). 

Accordingly, this court orders the following:

(1) Plaintiff shall seek to cure these deficiencies by filing no later than June 9, 2005, a copy of

the written consent required by Local Rule CR 3(b). 

Failure to cure this deficiency by the above date shall be deemed a failure to properly

prosecute this matter and the court will recommend dismissal of this matter.

(2) The clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff along with the appropriate

written consent form.

DATED this 9th day of May, 2005.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05268-RJB Document 3 Filed 05/09/05 Page 2 of 2
Note to Docket ( EPA - HQ - OAR - 2008 - 0924 )

This note is to doc ument conversations with several refiners that took place under requests that the information relayed be kept confidential per confidential business information practices. On October 13, 2009. Kurt Gustafson of EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality spoke separatel y with individuals from Suncor, Conoco Phillips, and Valero refining regarding comments received in response to EPA’s proposed Denver RVP rulemaking.
August 19, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JOSEPH EDWARD SPILLERS, Appellant

NO. 14-13-00331-CR

NO. 14-13-00332-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
David,

Below please see the response from Alumax of South Carolina 

regarding your July 01, 2011 e-mail with questions around coke 

sulfur content.

Contact me if questions.

Henk

Henk van der Meyden, PG

Environmental Manager

Alcoa - Mt. Holly (dba Alumax of South Carolina)

Office: (843) 572-5361

Cell: (843) 296-3359

Fax: (843) 572-5378

1. The range of sulfur content in the coke utilized to make 

anodes

used in the reduction cells over the last year of operation.

Response: The range of sulfur content in coke utilized to 

make

anodes, as based on the monthly average of coke shipments 

received, was 2.09% to 2.17% for the period July 2010 - June 

2011.

2. The highest sulfur content in the coke utilized to make 

anodes

used in the reduction cells at any time during the last 10 

years.

Response: The highest sulfur content in the coke utilized 

to make

anodes over the last 10 years, as based on the monthly average 

of coke shipments received, was 2.77%.

3. The lowest sulfur content anode coke that you believe you 

could

consistently obtain in sufficient quantities to operate your 

facility at capacity, long term (e.g. over the next 10 years).

Response: Given concerns about the future availability of low 

sulfur coke, Alcoa believes that the lowest sulfur content anode 

coke that will be available in sufficient quantities to operate 

Alumax of South Carolina at capacity long term is 3% sulfur. 

This 3% sulfur coke will be a blend of low and high sulfur 

material.