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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:54:09 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,

Jane Jenkins

Indianapolis, IN 46278
From: anderson.ken@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:17:28 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,

Ken Anderson

Grapevine, TX 76051
Case No. 6,508.

#### HILLIARD et al. v. HARPER et al.

'[The case reported under above title in 4 Law Rep. 334, is the same as Case No. 5,716.]
fbk-ex1018_488.htm



Exhibit 10.18

AMENDMENT TO EBI UNIT AWARD AGREEMENT

 

Participant:



Number of EBI Units: Grant Date:

 

This Amendment ("Amendment") is effective as of the 1st day of March, 2018, and amends that certain EBI Unit Award Agreement between the Employee and FirstBank (the "Company") having the terms summarized above (the "EBI Unit Award Agreement"). Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined in this Amendment have the meaning given to such terms in the EBI Unit Award Agreement.

 

The EBI Unit Award Agreement shall be amended as provided below. 1.Section 2 shall be amended by adding the following new subsection (h):

"Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement or the Plan to the contrary, if the Participant's employment is terminated without Cause, then the EBI Units shall become fully­ vested, and shall otherwise pay out in accordance with the terms of the Plan."

 


	
 
	
2.
	
Section 2(g) (as renumbered  per the addition of new subsection (h) above) shall be deleted  in its entirety and replaced with the following:
	
 




 

"g. Except as specifically provided in the Plan with respect to Retirement, death or Disability, or as provided herein with respect to the Participant's termination without Cause, no EBI Units that are unvested at termination of employment shall thereafter become vested."

 


	
 
	
3.
	
The EBI Unit Award Agreement, as modified by the terms of this Amendment, shall continue in full force and effect from and after the date of the adoption of this Amendment.
	
 




 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, FirstBank, acting by and through its duly authorized officers, has caused this Amendment to be duly executed.

 

FIRSTBANK

 

 




	
 
	
By:
	
Christopher T. Holmes Its:President and CEO
	
 




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LEGAL02/35 l 66968v I

Approved  by Compensation  Committee on 3.1.2018
Before the Third Division,

August 11, 1958

No. 62281.

#### J. J. Boll *v.*United States,

protest 323844-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Since it appeared from the stipulation that duty was assessed because of failure to fully comply with the regulations, in that the certificate of outward manifest was not filed and that the collector waived the *352production of same (Customs Regulations, section 10.1 *(a)*(3)), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained. Abstract 53865 followed.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2016

- 0466 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2014

- NM

- 188

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then ou t of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance)

Work

- hours

(include

access, testing,

and close

- up) Labor

cost

(@$8 5 / h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Inspection 11 $ 935.00 $ 935.00 

### 24 $ 22,440.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.0 0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### Th e known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 22,440



### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

On

- Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work

- hours

(include access,

testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00



### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table

that was assumed or might not be obvio us. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

Re gulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
Before the First Division,

May 3, 1965

No. 69283.

#### Aristo Craft Distinctive Miniatures *v.*United States,

protest 62/18797 (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Nichols, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of miniature motors similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 66961, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7274

CHARLES GILBERT SHEPPARD, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, District Judge.

(CA-94-482-2)

Submitted: November 14, 1995 Decided: May 21, 1996

Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and MICHAEL, Circuit

Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Gilbert Sheppard, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees,

Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed the record and

the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the

magistrate judge and find no reversible error. While some language

in the district court's order raised a question as to the standard

of review employed by the court, we are confident that, based on

the district court's representation and the order itself, the court

conducted the required de novo review of the magistrate judge's

report. Accordingly, although we grant a certificate of probable

cause to appeal, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Sheppard v. Angelone, No. CA-94-482-2 (E.D. Va. July 21, 1995). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# Journal officiel C 122A/16 a

| | ISSN 1977-0936 |
| --- | --- |
| Journal officiel
  de l'Union européenne | C 122A |
| | |
| Édition de langue française | Communications et informations | 58e année16 avril 2015 |

ISSN 1977-0936

Journal officiel

de l'Union européenne

C 122A

Édition de langue française

Communications et informations

58e année16 avril 2015

---

| Numéro d'information | Sommaire | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Rectificatifs |
| 2015/C 122A/01 | Rectificatif à l’avis de concours généraux — Administrateurs (AD 5/AD 7) spécialisés dans la recherche juridique — EPSO/AD/295/15 — Juristes de formation juridique bulgare (BG) — EPSO/AD/296/15 — Juristes de formation juridique allemande (DE) — EPSO/AD/297/15 — Juristes de formation juridique croate (HR) — EPSO/AD/298/15 — Juristes de formation juridique irlandaise (IE) — EPSO/AD/299/15 — Juristes de formation juridique lituanienne (LT) — EPSO/AD/300/15 — Juristes de formation juridique slovaque (SK) — ( JO C 68 A du 26.2.2015 ) | 1 |

Numéro d'information

Sommaire

page

Rectificatifs

2015/C 122A/01

Rectificatif à l’avis de concours généraux — Administrateurs (AD 5/AD 7) spécialisés dans la recherche juridique — EPSO/AD/295/15 — Juristes de formation juridique bulgare (BG) — EPSO/AD/296/15 — Juristes de formation juridique allemande (DE) — EPSO/AD/297/15 — Juristes de formation juridique croate (HR) — EPSO/AD/298/15 — Juristes de formation juridique irlandaise (IE) — EPSO/AD/299/15 — Juristes de formation juridique lituanienne (LT) — EPSO/AD/300/15 — Juristes de formation juridique slovaque (SK) — ( JO C 68 A du 26.2.2015 )

( JO C 68 A du 26.2.2015 )

1

---

| FR | |
| --- | --- |

FR

---

Rectificatifs

| 16.4.2015 | FR | Journal officiel de l'Union européenne | CA 122/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2015

FR

Journal officiel de l'Union européenne

CA 122/1

---

Rectificatif à l’avis de concours généraux — Administrateurs (AD 5/AD 7) spécialisés dans la recherche juridique — EPSO/AD/295/15 — Juristes de formation juridique bulgare (BG) — EPSO/AD/296/15 — Juristes de formation juridique allemande (DE) — EPSO/AD/297/15 — Juristes de formation juridique croate (HR) — EPSO/AD/298/15 — Juristes de formation juridique irlandaise (IE) — EPSO/AD/299/15 — Juristes de formation juridique lituanienne (LT) — EPSO/AD/300/15 — Juristes de formation juridique slovaque (SK)

(
  «Journal officiel de l’Union européenne» C 68 A du 26 février 2015
  )

(2015/C 122 A/01)

Page 2, titre I, point 3:

au lieu de:

«Délai (validation comprise): 31 mars 2015 à 12 h (midi), heure de Bruxelles.»

lire:

«Délai (validation comprise): 9 avril 2015 à 12 h (midi), heure de Bruxelles.»

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. ZAVIER SANCHEZ, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 71 EAL 2015 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 23rd day of July, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
No. 66042.

Appeal 5077.

#### United States *v.*F. W. Myers & Co., Inc.

C.D. 2239. Appeal dismissed July 7,1961.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 68127]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21743]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Clinical Trial Implementation 
Cooperative Agreement (U01 Clinical Trial Required).
    Date: October 30, 2023.
    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3E71, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Ann Marie M. Brighenti, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3E71, 
Rockville, MD 20852, 301-761-3100, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#175679795a76657e72395465626d57797e767e7339797e7f39707861"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e3a28d8dae82918a86cda0919699a38d8a828a87cd8d8a8bcd848c95">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 26, 2023.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-21743 Filed 10-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 66507]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21091]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 731-TA-893 (Fourth Review)]


Honey From China; Determination

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year 
review, the United States International Trade Commission 
(``Commission'') determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the 
Act''), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on honey from 
China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material 
injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably 
foreseeable time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in Sec.  207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission instituted this review on March 1, 2023 (88 FR 
12992) and determined on June 5, 2023 that it would conduct an 
expedited review (88 FR 44841, July 13, 2023).
    The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 751(c) 
of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its 
determination in this review on September 22, 2023. The views of the 
Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5461 (September 2023), 
entitled Honey from China: Investigation No. 731-TA-893 (Fourth 
Review).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: September 22, 2023.
Sharon Bellamy,
Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2023-21091 Filed 9-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
Before the Second Division,

August 15, 1961

No. 65962.

#### J. M. Altieri *v.*United States,

protest 59/4359 (San Juan).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1 The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-3524

___________ Suleiman A. Ibrahim, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. Metropolitan Transit Authority; * Jim Tishim; David Allsup, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: January 5, 2007 Filed: January 12, 2007

___________ Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Suleiman Ibrahim appeals from the district court’s 1 order enforcing a settlement agreement between Ibrahim and Metropolita n Transit Authority, arguing that his attorney did not possess authority to en ter into the settlement. Upon our careful review of the record, we hold that the district court did not clearly err in concluding that Ibrahim had granted his attorney au thority to settle the case and that the-2- settlement agreement therefore bound Ibrahim. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order enforcing the agreement. See 8th Cir. 47B.

______________________________
Exhibit 10.4


             SECOND AMENDMENT TO LOAN AGREEMENT AND PROMISSORY NOTE


     THIS AMENDMENT is made as of the 27th day of January,  1998, by and between
MALCOLM G. CHACE,  an individual  having an address at 731 Hospital Trust Tower,
Providence,   Rhode   Island   02903  (the   "Lender")   and  ACCESS   SOLUTIONS
INTERNATIONAL,  INC.,  a Delaware  corporation  having an address at 650 Ten Rod
Road, North Kingstown, Rhode Island 02852 (the "Borrower").

                      W I T N E S S E T H      T H A T:

     WHEREAS, the Borrower executed and delivered to the Lender a certain letter
agreement  dated November 20, 1997,  pursuant to which the Lender agreed to loan
to the Borrower the maximum principal sum of $180,000 ("Loan Agreement"),  which
Loan Agreement is incorporated by reference herein and made a part hereof; and

     WHEREAS,  the  Borrower  executed  and  delivered  to the  Lender a certain
Promissory  Note dated  November 20, 1997 in the  principal  amount of $180,000,
which Note is hereby  incorporated  by  reference  herein and made a part hereof
(the "Note"); and

     WHEREAS,  the  Borrower and the Lender  executed a First  Amendment to Loan
Agreement and Promissory Note dated as of January 5, 1998, pursuant to which the
maturity date of the Note was extended to January 30, 1998.

     WHEREAS, the parties desire to further extend the maturity date of the Note
to February 27, 1998; and

     WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to amend the Loan Agreement and the Note
in the manner hereinafter set forth.

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

     1. All  outstanding  obligations  under  the Loan  Agreement  and the Note,
including  principal,  interest,  and fees, shall be due and payable on February
27, 1998.

     2. Security for the Note is evidenced  by, among other  things,  a Security
Agreement  dated November 20, 1997,  and as further  amended on the date hereof,
and UCC  financing  statements  filed with the Rhode  Island  Secretary of State
("Security Instruments"). All references to the Note in the Security Instruments
shall be deemed to include this  amendment to the Note and any other  amendments
which may be executed.

     3. Except as modified  and amended  hereby,  the Note shall  remain in full
force and effect and is in all other respects ratified and confirmed.

     IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the parties  hereto have caused this  Amendment to be
duly executed as of the day and year indicated above.



LENDER:                             BORROWER


                                    ACCESS SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

/s/ Malcolm G. Chace
-------------------------------     By: /s/ Robert H. Stone
    Malcolm G. Chace                   -----------------------------------------
                                            Robert H. Stone
                                            President and CEO