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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:17:36 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,

Teri Bristol

Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
#### Lida PETROSYAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry G. MASSANARI,* Defendant-Appellee.

No. 00-55041.

DC NO. CV-97-04962-AAH.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 7, 2001 **.

Decided July 6, 2001.

Before D.W. NELSON, FERNANDEZ and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

*

 Larry G. Massanari is substituted for his predecessor as Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Lida Petrosyan appeals the district court’s summary judgment finding her ineligible for supplemental security income disability benefits. We affirm. Substantial evidence supports the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) finding that Petrosyan did not have a severe impairment. The three medical reports that Petrosyan submitted as evidence provide scant basis for a finding of severe impairment, and the ALJ gave numerous, specific reasons for rejecting the claimant’s subjective pain testimony. *See Flaten v. Secretary of Health & Human Services,*44 F.3d 1453, 1464 (9th Cir.1995); *Magallanes v. Bowen,*881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th *644Cir.1989). The ALJ satisfied his duty to develop the record fully by holding the record open so that the claimant could supplement the medical evidence. *See Tidwell v. Apfel,*161 F.3d 599, 602 (9th Cir.1998).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[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: PREAdata collection activities.**
 
2009
2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018
 
SuDoc Number:J 29.48:
Item Number:0717-R-31 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000956688
 
August 21, 2018
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 747 

Recognizing the religious and historical significance of the festival of Diwali. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 16, 2007 

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina (for himself and Mr. MCDERMOTT) submitted 

the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign 

Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the religious and historical significance of the 

festival of Diwali. 

Whereas Diwali, a festival of great significance to Indian 

Americans and the people of India, is celebrated annually 

by Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Jains throughout the 

United States and the world; 

Whereas there are more than 2,000,000 Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Jains in the United States; 

Whereas the word ‘‘Diwali’’ is a shortened version of the 

Sanskrit term ‘‘Deepavali’’, which means ‘‘a row of 

lamps’’; 

Whereas Diwali is a festival of lights, during which celebrants 

light small oil lamps, place them around the home, and 

pray for health, knowledge, and peace; 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 747 IH 

Whereas celebrants of Diwali believe that the rows of lamps 

symbolize the light within the individual that rids the 

soul of the darkness of ignorance; 

Whereas Diwali, falling on the last day of the last month in 

the lunar calendar, is celebrated as a day of thanksgiving 

and the beginning of the new year for many Hindus; 

Whereas for Hindus, Diwali is a celebration of the victory of 

good over evil; 

Whereas for Sikhs, Diwali is feted as the day that the sixth 

founding Sikh Guru, or revered teacher, Guru Hargobind 

ji, was released from captivity from the ruling Mughal 

Emperor; and 

Whereas for Jains, Diwali marks the anniversary of the attainment of moksha or liberation by Mahavira, the last 

of the Tirthankaras, who were the great teachers of Jain 

dharma, at the end of his life in 527 B.C.: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) during this time of celebration, in order to 

3 demonstrate support for Indian Americans and the 

4 Indian Diaspora throughout the world, recognizes 

5 Diwali as an important festival; 

6 (2) acknowledges the international religious and 

7 historical importance of the festival of Diwali; 

8 (3) recognizes and appreciates the religious di9 versity in both India and the United States and 

10 throughout the world; 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 747 IH 

1 (4) acknowledges and supports the new rela2 tionship of collaboration and dialogue in inter3 national efforts between the United States and 

4 India; and 

5 (5) in observance of and out of respect for the 

6 start of Diwali, the festival of lights, acknowledges 

7 the onset of Diwali and expresses its deepest respect 

8 to Indian Americans and the Indian Diaspora 

9 throughout the world on this significant occasion. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                               EXHIBIT 10.14.2


                            SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE

                       NCR DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PROGRAM


     AMENDMENT TO THE NCR DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PROGRAM (the "Plan") as adopted
effective January 1, 1997.

     WHEREAS, Section 6.4 of the Plan provides that the Compensation Committee
of the Board of Directors of NCR Corporation may amend the Plan; and

     WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee desires to make certain technical
changes to the Plan terms;

     NOW, THEREFORE, the Compensation Committee does hereby amend the Plan,
effective as of the date of adoption of this amendment, as follows:

1.   The following new Section 6.5 is hereby added at the end of Article VI:

Cash-Out of Small Benefits.  If the value of a Director's Deferred Stock Award
--------------------------
is less than $175,000 on the date of ceasing to serve as a Director, the former
Director may submit a written request to the Compensation Committee for an
immediate payment, stating the reasons for such request.   The Compensation
Committee in its sole discretion may determine that such a payment will or will
not be made.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>         5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM July 31,
2000 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF STARTECH ENVIRONMENTAL CORP., AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>       1

<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                Oct-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                     Jul-31-2000
<CASH>                                             5,542,105
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        842,821
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                          884,812
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   7,282,128
<PP&E>                                               335,626
<DEPRECIATION>                                             0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     7,664,879
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              1,115,476
<BONDS>                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                        5,473,732
<COMMON>                                           6,444,596
<OTHER-SE>                                        (5,385,597)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       7,664,879
<SALES>                                              239,607
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     239,607
<CGS>                                                128,469
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        811,218
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     (87,444)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            0
<INCOME-TAX>                                             940
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (613,576)
<EPS-BASIC>                                            (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (0.10)



</TABLE>
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the WESTERN DISTRICT of WASHINGTON

CAPITOL RECORDS, INC., et al.,

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

 vs. 

SISOUDA SOYSOUVANH,

 Defendant.

 C06-237 JCC

 MINUTE ORDER

 REASSIGNING CASE

Pursuant to the Amended General Order entered by the Chief Judge on

November 3, 2004, this action has been reassigned to the Honorable John C. Coughenour, United

States District Judge. 

All future documents filed in this case must bear the cause number C06-237 JCC and bear

the Judge’s name in the upper right hand corner of the document.

Dated this 29th day of March, 2006

BRUCE RIFKIN

Clerk of Court

by: /s/ PETER H. VOELKER

 Peter H. Voelker, Deputy Clerk

Case 2:06-cv-00237-JCC-RSL Document 9 Filed 03/29/06 Page 1 of 1
Before the Second Division,

March 6, 1961

No. 65241.

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

protests 59/27260 and 59/28027 (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protests were dismissed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Parmeno BERNAL-FLORES, also known as Jaime Gutierrez Penalosa, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-41149.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 17, 2005.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

*387Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Parmeno Bernal-Flores appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation. For the first time on appeal, Bernal-Flores argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Bernal-Flores concedes that this argument is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). *See United States v. Dabeit,*231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000).

Also for the first time on appeal, Bernal-Flores argues that the district court erred in sentencing him under a mandatory sentencing guidelines scheme. *See United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Bernal-Flores acknowledges that this argument is reviewed for plain error, but argues that he does not have to show that the district court’s error affected his substantial rights because the error is structural and because prejudice should be presumed.

Plain error is the correct standard of review. See *United States v. Malveaux,*411 F.3d 558, 560 n. 9 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed*(July 11, 2005) (No. 05-5297). The district court committed error that is plain when it sentenced BernalFlores under a mandatory sentencing guidelines regime. *See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo,*407 F.3d 728, 733 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed*(July 25, 2005) (No. 05-5556); *United States v. Martinez-Lugo,*411 F.3d 597, 601 (5th Cir.2005). Bernal-Flores fails to meet his burden of showing that the district court’s error affected his substantial rights. *See Valenzuela-Quevedo,*407 F.3d at 733-34; *United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511, 521 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed*(Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517); *see also United States v. Bringier,*405 F.3d 310, 317 n. 4 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed*(July 26, 2005)(No. 05-5535).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1169

GWOR FENG GUO,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals.

Submitted: September 19, 2008 Decided: October 9, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

June Zhou, LAW OFFICES OF JUNE ZHOU, LLC, Deerfield Beach, Florida,

for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney

General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Brianne

Whelan Cohen, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*We find that only the Board’s denial of Guo’s “motion for

reinstatement” is properly before this court as he failed to

petition this court for review of the Board’s previous orders. See

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2000) (setting forth thirty-day appeal

period); Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995) (holding that

appeal period is “jurisdictional in nature and must be construed

with strict fidelity to [its] terms”).

2

PER CURIAM:

Gwor Feng Guo, a native and citizen of the People’s

Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his “motion for

reinstatement.”* We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order

and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying

Guo’s motion as untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2008) (setting

forth standard of review). Further, to the extent that Guo claims

that the Board should have exercised its sua sponte authority to

reopen or reconsider, we lack jurisdiction to review this claim.

See Lenis v. United States Att’y Gen., 525 F.3d 1291, 1292-93 (11th

Cir. 2008) (collecting cases). Accordingly, we deny the petition

for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
No. P67/108.

#### Selectile Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 62/8323 (Los Angeles).

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of polished marble slabs similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Selectile Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 30, C.D. 2504), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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 ORDER REGARDING 

MOTIONS FOR EXTENSIONS - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

MART LIIKANE, 

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SEATTLE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-1829L

ORDER REGARDING 

MOTIONS FOR EXTENSIONS

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s Request to Re-Schedule Note to

Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #63) and on his Motion to Modify the Schedule

(Dkt. #74). Plaintiff requested additional time to respond to defendants’ pending motion

for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s response was due on January 8, 2007, and he filed it

on January 10, 2007. The Court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion to file his response late

(Dkt. #63) and will consider his late filed response.

Plaintiff has also filed a motion to modify the Court’s scheduling order to extend

the discovery deadline, which was January 7, 2007. Plaintiff filed his motion after that

deadline had already passed, on January 16, 2007. The Court’s Minute Order Setting

Trial and Related Dates states, “The Court will alter these dates only upon good cause

Case 2:05-cv-01829-RSL Document 82 Filed 02/05/07 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 ORDER REGARDING 

MOTIONS FOR EXTENSIONS - 2

shown: failure to complete discovery within the time allowed is not recognized as good

cause.” Plaintiff requests additional time because he “recently again had two heart

operations with many lab tests and follow-up tests and observations.” Plaintiff’s Motion

at p. 1. Plaintiff does not specify when the operations occurred. Plaintiff has stated in

other filings that the surgeries occurred years ago. Furthermore, plaintiff has not

identified the discovery he hopes to obtain. He filed his motion after defendants filed a

motion to quash his subpoena, in part because it purported to note a deposition after the

discovery deadline. That subpoena, however, was directed to defendants’ counsel and

was quashed as improperly seeking testimony that was privileged and documents that

were publically available. Accordingly, plaintiff is not entitled to additional time to

pursue that subpoena.

Finally, defendants have dispositive motions pending and are entitled to an

expeditious resolution of this case. Plaintiff has not alleged that he needs to conduct

discovery to respond to the motions. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to modify the case

schedule (Dkt. #74) is DENIED.

DATED this 5th day of February, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01829-RSL Document 82 Filed 02/05/07 Page 2 of 2
| Skip to Content*Release Date: March 6, 2014*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical data | Technical Q&AsCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**F.113 Credit Unions** |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                           14645
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     4000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 18645
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   18645
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3172874
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        537
<COMMON>                                        250872
<OTHER-SE>                                    (6559867)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     18645
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (175377)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (175377)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (175377)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.01)


</TABLE>
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 08069**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  

### 08069\08069_Aerial Map.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 08069\08069_Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement 

### x 08069\08069_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 08069\08069_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 08069\08069_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted 

### x 08069\08069_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 08069\08069_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 08069\08069_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 08069\Supporting Documentation\08069_CCT COVERMEMO.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 08069\Supporting Documentation\08069_EA Combustion Turbine.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 08069\Supporting Documentation\08069_Environmental Assessment.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 08069\Supporting Documentation\08069_fonsi.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 08069\Supporting Documentation\08069_INFO TABLE - NEPA CT Capacity Purchases - Cogentrix Caledo.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 08069\Supporting Documentation\08069_SCC ICR Flow Schematic Source Diagram August 2010.ppt Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 08069\Supporting Documentation\08069_SCC ICR Flow Schematic Source Diagram August 2010.pptx Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.