alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: 

To: 

Cc: 

JEhrig@eckertseamans.com 

Finamore. Robert (OSD 

ESahr@eckertseamans.com 

Subject: 

Date: 

Fw: Service/Polling for Application of China Eastern for Exemption Authority Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 40109 

Thursday, April 18, 2013 4:03:34 PM 

Attachments: APPLICATION OF CHINA EASTERN FOR EXEMPTION AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO 49 USC 40109 

(N0172913).PDF 

Dear Bob, 

As per my phone message, we finished polling all carriers on the service 

list and there were no objections to the attached China Eastern 

application. We would appreciate it if you could send the approval as soon 

as you can. 

Thanks so much 

Kind regards 

Jim 

James G. Ehrig, Esq. 

Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC 

1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

12th Floor 

Washington, DC 20006 

Telephone: 202 659 6672 

Fax : 202 659 6699 

email: jehrig@eckertseamans.com 

----- Forwarded by James G Ehrig/ESCM on 04/18/2013 04:01 PM -----

Leslie · 

LaRose/ESCM 

04/16/2013 03:33 

PM 

To 

urskr@state.gov, 

john .allen@faa.gov, 

robert. wirick@aa .com, 

francis.heil@aa.com, 

sascha. vanderbellen@delta .com, 

howard.kass@usairways.com, 

benjamin .slocum@usairways.com, 

dan.weiss@united.com, 

steve. morrissey@ united .com, 

thomas.bolling@united.com, 

kevin.montgomery@polaraircargo.com, 

rpommer@atlasair.com, 

anbird@fedex.com, 

nssparks@fedex.com, 

anita. mosner@hklaw .com, 

m lbenge@zsrlaw .com, 

info@airlineinfo.com, 

charters@evergreenairlines.com 

cc 

Subject 

Service/Polling for Application of 
China Eastern for Exemption 

Authority Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 

40109 

Please find the attached Application of China Eastern Airlines Co., Ltd. 

for Exemption Authority Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 40109 that was filed 

today, April 16, 2013, with the Department of Transportation. 

Please note that China Eastern is polling on this application and kindly 

requests your reply as soon as possible. 

Kind regards, 

Leslie 

(See attached file: APPLICATION OF CHINA EASTERN FOR EXEMPTION AUTHORITY 

PURSUANT TO 49 USC 40109 (N0172913).PDF) 

Leslie LaRose 

Paralegal 

Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC 

1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

12th Floor 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

Telephone: 202.659.6611 

Fax: 202.659.6699 

Email: llarose@eckertseamans.com 

Scanned by Symantec Anti-Virus and Content Filtering before delivery. 

This e-mail message and any files transmitted with it are subject to 

attorney-client privilege and contain confidential information intended 

only for the person(s) to whom this email message is addressed. If you have 

received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately 

by telephone or e-mail and destroy the original message without making a 

copy. Thank you. 

Neither this information block, the typed name of the sender, nor anything 

else in this message is intended to constitute an electronic signature 

unless a specific statement to the contrary is included in this message.
No. 64500.

#### Somerset Importers, Ltd. *v.*United States,

protest 956148-G(A) (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Bichardson, 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 plaintiff was sustained.
From: Kenneth Petiniot

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:12:31 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

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,

Kenneth Petiniot
Toledo, Ohio
Exhibit
32.1
  CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 AND
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
   In
connection with this Annual Report of Universal
Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year
ending April 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lanny M. Roof, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:
  1.
              Such
      Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending April 30, 2009,
      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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K for
      the period ending April 30, 2009, fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
      of Universal Holdings, Inc.
  By: /s/Lanny M.
Roof Lanny M.
Roof
 CPA/CEO,
President and Treasurer
  July  23,
2009
(R.D. 11529)

#### Globe International of Calif., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 7966.

(Decided May 23, 1968)

*Glad & Tuttle*for tlie plaintiff.

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

Rao, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding *876of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, et seq.).

> 2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

> 3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for reappraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

> 4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs nos. 2 and 3.

> 5. That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

> 6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

> 7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended are correct.

> 8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in .•section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
From: jalarcom@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:47:13 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,

Linda Larcom

Vail, AZ 85641
ex_107981.htm


Exhibit 10.3.2


 


GEOVAX, INC.


SALARY DEFERRAL AGREEMENT


 


 


This Salary Deferral Agreement (the “Agreement”) is entered into as of April 25, 2016 by and between GeoVax, Inc., a Georgia Corporation (the “Company”), and Harriet L. Robinson (the “Employee”).


 


Whereas, the Company and Employee recognize that it is in the best interests of the Company, its shareholders, and its collective Employees to conserve the Company’s cash resources; and


 


Whereas, as part of its cash conservation measures, the Company is asking certain of its employees to accept salary reductions and/or deferrals; 


 


Whereas, Employee currently is currently earning an annualized gross salary of $265,750 (“Base Salary”), which has been previously reduced by 50% to $132,875, based on Employee’s reduction of her time devoted to the Company’s business; 


 


Now, therefore, the parties hereby agree as follows:


 


	
			1.

				
			Salary Deferral.

			
	 	Employee agrees to accept a deferral of 50% of her remaining Base Salary as previously reduced, which amount will be accrued and paid to Employee as described below.



 


	
			2.

				
			Discontinuance of Salary Reduction and/or Deferral

			
	 	Employee’s Salary Deferral pursuant to this Agreement shall end upon the earlier of (i) a significant event (to include financing, corporate partnership, etc., as determined by the Company), or (ii) December 31, 2016 (the “Discontinuance Date”).



 


	
			3.

				
			Payment of Accumulated Deferred Salary.

			
	 	At the Discontinuance Date, the Company in its sole discretion will determine the form of payment to be made to Employee for the accumulated Deferred Salary. Such payment may be made in cash, in the form of Company Stock, or in a combination of cash and stock.



 


 


ACCEPTANCE


	 	 	 	 
	
			Employee

				 	 	
			Date

				 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	
			Agreed:

				 	 	 	 
	 	
			GeoVax, Inc.

				 	 	 
	 	
			By:
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER DENYING §2255 MOTION

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

SADIE YVONNE COLEMAN,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C05-0788-RSL-MAT

(CR01-309-RSL)

ORDER DENYING §2255 MOTION

The Court, having reviewed petitioner’s § 2255 motion, the government’s answer,

petitioner’s response, the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Mary Alice Theiler,

United States Magistrate Judge, any objections thereto, and the remaining record, does hereby find

and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation.

(2) Petitioner’s § 2255 motion (Dkt. #1) is DENIED.

(3) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to petitioner, to counsel for

respondent, and to Judge Theiler.

DATED this 18th day of October, 2005.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00788-RSL Document 20 Filed 10/18/05 Page 1 of 1
From: jennifer.sirmans@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:28:25 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 Sirmans

Valdosta, GA 31605
From: wickhame@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:32:26 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,

ELAINE WICKHAM

Smyrna, TN 37167
From: mlswannest@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:59:57 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,

Linda Swan

Stanton, MI 48888
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 562 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         July 25, 2007.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 3093) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and 
Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 2008, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived 
except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be 
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the bill for 
failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. During consideration of 
the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord 
priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment 
has caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record 
designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
shall be considered as read. When the committee rises and reports the bill back 
to the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the previous question 
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
    Sec. 2.  During consideration in the House of H.R. 3093 pursuant to this 
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair 
may postpone further consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated 
by the Speaker.
    Sec. 3.  The Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations is authorized, on 
behalf of the Committee, to file a supplemental report to accompany H.R. 3093.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```