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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:27:23 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,

Deanna Leonard

Hermiston, OR 97838
No. 59804.

#### Arthur J. Humphreys *v.*United States,

protests 214326-K and 220297-K (Seattle).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beef or veal similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Swift & Company et al.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 212, C. D. 1655), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Order entered November 19, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 00883
- CR ROBERT GARRETT, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Cour t Cause No. F10
- 52395
- R



### O RDER The reporter’s record has been filed in this appeal, but the clerk’s record is overdue. Appellant’s docketing statement reflects that the clerk’s record was requested on July 2, 2013. Accordingly, this Court ORDERS the Dall as County District Clerk to file, within
TWENTY
- FIVE DAYS of the date of this order, a complete clerk’s record.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Gary Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk; the Dallas Coun ty District Clerk’s Office, Criminal Records Division; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
Case No. 14,855.

#### UNITED STATES v. COOKE et al.

[29 Leg. Int. 221;116 Int. Rev. Rec. 143; 9 Phila. 468; 5 Am. Law T. 166.]

District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

Nov. 25, 1871.

Payment—Mistake—Forged Signature— Laches.

Where an officer of the United States paid a draft upon a forged signature, and more than six years afterwards suit was brought m recover the same from the banker, who had innocently collected the same: *Held,*the action not to be sustained.

[Cited in The Iunocenta, Case No. 7,050.]

UNITED STATES (COOKE v.). See Case-No. 3,178.

John K. Yalentine and Aubrey H. Smith, for the United States.

George D. Budd and John Clayton, for Jay Cooke & Co.

Before CADWALADER, District Judge.

1

 [Reprinted from 29 Leg. Int. 221, by permission.]

Charles II. Colton. Asst. Surgeon U. S. Army, placed in the hands of Ira B. M’Vay & Co., bankers of Pittsburgh, a pay roll for collection, which M’Yay *&*Co. sent to Jay Cooke & Co., at Philadelphia. The latter firm received the money from Paymaster Riche. June 24th, 1863, transmitted it to M’Yay & Co., who paid it over to the supposed Colton. The order attached to the pay roll, and the endorsement were as follows:

“Paymaster Major Taggart, U. S. Army will please pay to Messrs. Ira B. M’Yay *&*Co., or order, the amount of the within roll. Charles M. Colton. Asst. Surgeon U. S. A.

“Pay to Jay Cooke & Co., or order. Ira B. M’Vay & Co.

“Jay Cooke & Co.”

Sometime in the year 1S69. it was discovered that the signature of Charles M. Colton was a forgery, and November 6th. 1SG9. suit was brought against Jay Cooke & Co. by the United States, to recover the amount of the pay roll.

On the trial the learned judge charged the jury that the fact of the forgery was fully established, but that the case did not differ from the familiar one where an individual paid a check on the faith of the signature of the drawer, which subsequently proved to be a forgery. Under the directions of the court the jury rendered a verdict for the defendants.

The counsel for the United States, having-moved for a new trial, were heard January 16th, 1S72, when the learned judge said that there were several interesting points in the case, which might be discussed, but it was; only necessary to say that the delay of more than six years which had elapsed was fatal to the claim of the United States—that all the cases required the utmost diligence on the part of the drawee, a diligence analogous to that required in giving notice of the dishonor-of commercial paper In this case had an individual been the plaintiff, the action would have been barred by the statute of limitations. He therefore refused the motion for a new trial.
M AILING A DDRESS : U NITED A IR L INES

, I NC

., 1025 C ONNECTICUT A VENUE

, N.W., S UITE 1210, W ASHINGTON

, D.C. 20036 S TEVE M ORRISSEY M ANAGING D IRECTOR —I NTERNATIONAL & R EGULATORY A FFAIRS (202) 296-2733 (202) 296-2873 FAX

STEVE

. MORRISSEY @ UNITED

. COM

October 13, 2010

Esta Rosenberg, Chief U.S. Carrier Licensing Division U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Joint Application of Continental Airl ines, Inc. and United Air Lines, Inc. for Allocation of Seven U.S.-China Frequencies

DOT-OST-2010-0256

Dear Ms. Rosenberg:

This is to advise that United has completed its po ll of U.S. carrier representatives in the attached

service list for the above-refere nced application, file d on September 12, 2010. No carrier objects to the grant of this application.

Respectfully submitted,

Steve Morrissey Managing Director, International & Regulatory Affairs

cc: Thuy CooperCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this date se rved a copy of the foregoing document on all

persons named below by causing a copy to be sent via email:

byerlyjr@state.gov benjamin.slocum@usairways.com

carl.nelson@aa.com howard_kass@usairways.com jeff.morgan@delta.com

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

Annalei Avanceña Advisor—Regulatory Affairs

Dated: October 13, 2010
No. 64588.

#### Anglo-American Commodities et al. *v.*United States,

protests 175448-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of candlesticks similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 62036, except that they are not plated with platinum, gold, or silver, nor colored with gold lacquer, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Before the Third Division,

February 20, 1958

No. 61574.

#### Barnett International Forwarders, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 305983-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Exhibit 10.1













 


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM







We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-101652, 333-137102, 333-153419, 333-206420, 333-207946, 333-210151 and 333-222294) of Partner Communications Company Ltd. of our report dated March 28, 2018 relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 20-F. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading Selected Financial Data in this Form 20-F.


 



	
Tel-Aviv, Israel


March 28, 2018

	

/s/ Kesselman & Kesselman


Certified Public Accountants (lsr.)


A member firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited









  












Kesselman & Kesselman, Trade Tower, 25 Hamered Street, Tel-Aviv 68125, Israel,


P.O Box 50005 Tel-Aviv 61500  Telephone: +972 -3- 7954555, Fax:+972 -3- 7954556, www.pwc.com/il
Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 555 Filed 06/22/12 Page 1 of 8
Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 555 Filed 06/22/12 Page 2 of 8
Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 555 Filed 06/22/12 Page 3 of 8
Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 555 Filed 06/22/12 Page 4 of 8
Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 555 Filed 06/22/12 Page 5 of 8
Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 555 Filed 06/22/12 Page 6 of 8
Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 555 Filed 06/22/12 Page 7 of 8
Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 555 Filed 06/22/12 Page 8 of 8
Exhibit 4.17




THE
LAW OFFICES OF DAVID J. STERN, P.A. 401(K) PLAN
  COST-SHARING
AGREEMENT
  This
Cost-Sharing Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into as of [INSERT DATE], 2010 by
and among, Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A., a professional association
licensed to practice law in the State of Florida (“Law Firm”), DJS Processing,
LLC, a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of
Delaware (“DJSP”), Default Servicing, LLC, a limited liability company organized
under the laws of the State of Delaware (“DSI”), Professional Title and Abstract
Company of Florida, LLC, a limited liability company organized under the laws of
the State of Delaware (“PTA”) (DJSP, PTA and DSI are each referred to herein as
the “Newly-Formed LLC”).
  WHEREAS,the Newly-Formed LLC
became participating employers in The Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A. 401(k)
Plan (the “Plan”) on January 15, 2010;
  WHEREAS,Matthews Benefits,
Inc. (“Matthews”) provides plan compliance, reporting and administrative
services for the Plan;
  WHEREAS,notwithstanding any
agreement or understanding (written or oral) to the contrary, Newly-Formed LLC
and the Law Firm desire to share the administrative costs incident to the
maintenance and operation of the Plan that are not otherwise paid by the Plan
(“Plan Cost”).
  NOW THEREFORE,in
consideration of the mutual promises and covenants set forth herein, and for
such other good and valuable consideration, the adequacy and receipt of which
are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:
  1. Law
Firm shall invoice Newly-Formed LLC for its portion of the Plan Cost on a
quarterly basis;
  2. Plan
Cost shall be allocated based on the number of employees at Newly-Formed LLC and
Law Firm on the date of the invoice;
  3. To the
extent Matthews indicates on its invoice to Law Firm that a Plan Cost is related
solely to the Law Firm or Newly-Formed, LLC, such cost shall be borne solely by
the entity that incurred such Plan Cost;
  4.
Newly-Formed LLC shall pay its respective Plan Cost within ten (10) days
following the receipt of the invoice from the Law Firm;
  5.
Newly-Formed LLC shall pay Plan Costs directly to Matthews from its own bank
account;
  6. If
Newly-Formed LLC disputes the amount invoiced by the Law Firm regarding its
portion of Plan Costs, Newly Formed LLC shall provide written notification of
its objection to the Law Firm within ten (10) days following the receipt of such
invoice.  If Newly Formed LLC and Law Firm are unable to agree on the
Plan Cost for Newly-Formed LLC within ten (10) days of the Newly-Formed LLC’s
written objection, the disputed amount shall be submitted to Matthews. and both
the Law Firm and the Companies agree to be bound by the determination of Plan
Cost by Matthews.
   
  IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly
executed, all as of the day and year first above written.
   LAW
OFFICES OF DAVID J. STERN, P.A.
   By:
 Name:
 Title:
   DJS
PROCESSING, LLC
  By:
 Name:
 Title:
   PROFESSIONAL
TITLE AND ABSTRACT COMPANY OF FLORIDA, LLC
  By:
 Name:
 Title:
   DEFAULT
SERVICING, LLC
  By:
 Name:
 Title:
Relevant Meetings with External Stakeholders since Publication of the 2011 IFR:

September 7, 2011 –Williams & Associates to discuss his comments on the IFR

September 13, 2011 – David Doniger, NRDC to discuss the IFR and the allocation of HCFC-22

September 16, 2011 – National Refrigerants to discuss the IFR and allocation of HCFC-22

October 20, 2011 – Arkema, Inc. to discuss the allocation of HCFC-22 

November 10, 2011 – AGC Chemical to discuss the HCFC phaseout

November 15, 2011 – DuPont to discuss the allocation of HCFC-22 

December 14, 2011 – Hudson Technologies to discuss the allocation of HCFC-22
##### 



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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of SPARTA, Inc. (the Company) for the period
ended April 3, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, David E. Schreiman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, in my capacity as
an officer of the Company pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 as of the dates and for the
periods presented in the financial statements included in the report. May 10, 2005 /s/ David E. SchreimanDavid E. SchreimanChief Financial Officer
 - 24 -
From: Jnaron_ngc@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:51:15 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,

Jeff Naron

Glenmora, LA 71433
No. 68942.

#### American Express Co. and Strombeck Becker Mfg. Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 60/16263, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of electric motors similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 66961, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
EXHIBIT 12.1

 

**Certification**

 

I, Shengcheng Wang, 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
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 633 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     September 6, 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. 2786) to reauthorize the programs for housing assistance for Native 
Americans. 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 Financial Services. After general 
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions of 
the bill are waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to 
the bill shall be in order except those printed in the portion of the 
Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII and 
except pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. Each amendment so printed 
may be offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee 
and shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill 
for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
such amendments as may have been adopted. 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. 2786 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.  House Resolutions 595, 596, 613, and 614 are laid upon the table.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```