alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: lwheeler@hawaii.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:09:39 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,

Lawrence Wheeler

Kaneohe, HI 96744
[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:****Mild traumatic brain injuryrehabilitation toolkit**
 
SuDoc Number:D 104.2:T 69/2

Item Number:0351-A (online)
CGP systemNumber:000956277
 
PDF | Mobi | ePub
 
March 12, 2020
No. 69701.

#### Schick X-Ray Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 64/6325, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of anesthesia, breathing assistor, or resuscitation devices in chief value of steel similar in all material respects to those the subject of *The E. I. M. Corp.*v. *United States*(50 Cust. Ct. 138, C.D. 2402), except that the items marked “A” are chiefly used in hospitals as hospital utensils and the items marked “B” have as an essential feature an electrical element or device, the claims of the plaintiffs were sustained, as follows: The items marked “A” at 17 percent under the provision in paragraph 339, as modified by the Sixth Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 54108), for hospital utensils; the items marked “B” at 13% percent under the provision in paragraph 353, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 52739), for articles having as an essential feature an electrical element or device; and the items marked “C” at 19 percent under the provision in paragraph 397, as modified by T.D. 54108, for steel articles.
H. Res. 780 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

November 1, 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. 2262) to modify the requirements applicable to 

locatable minerals on public domain lands, consistent with the 

principles of self-initiation of mining claims, 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 Natural Resources. After general debate the bill shall be considered for 

amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order 

to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 

under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of 

a substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural Re-
2 

•HRES 780 EH 

sources now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in 

the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 

points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived except those arising under 

clause 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule 

XVIII, no amendment to the committee amendment in the 

nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 

in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 

resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 

order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 

designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be 

debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided 

and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not 

be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the 

Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 

amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 

or 10 of rule XXI. 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. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the 

House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 

Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
3 

•HRES 780 EH 

passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

SEC. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 2262 

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. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Case No. 10,226.

#### NICHOLLS v. FEARSON et al.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 526.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1824.

Practice — Sebvice as to One Defendant Only —Amas Capias.

If the writ be against two defendants, and one only be taken, the cause is discontinued, unless an alias capias be issued against the defendant not taken, and continued by pluries, &c., until the trial term.

I See Case No. 10.227.]

On the 21st of March, 1823, the plaintiff IWilliam S. Nicholls] issued a capias ad re-spondendum against Samuel Fearson and Joseph Fearson, returnable on the 2d Monday of April, 1823, and which was returned “Cepi Joseph; non est Samuel.” No alias capias was issued against Samuel. Joseph gave special bail, and pleaded the general issue; and now, at the trial term,

R. S. Coxe, for defendant,

contended that the cause was discontinued by not continuing process against Samuel, the joint defendant named in the first capias.

J. Dunlop and Mr. Key, contra.

The practice has not been uniform to issue a.pluries. It has been generally done, as a matter of choice, but not of necessity. Perhaps an alias may be necessary; but if a pluries be not necessary, why should an alias?

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

THE COURT

(nem. con.) decided that process of capias by alias, pluries, &e., must be continued against the absent defendant, until the trial term; and that, for the want of it in this case, the cause has been discontinued, and should be struck off the docket.

CRANCH, Chief Judge, and MORSELL, Circuit Judge, stated that they always understood the practice to be so in Maryland.

But Mr. Key having stated, that the precedents in Harris’s Entries mention one non est only, and not being able to refer to the hook now,

THE COURT said they would hear a motion to reinstate the cause, if Mr. Key should think he could support the motion.

No such motion was made, and the plaintiff brought a new suit, in which both defendants were taken. See McCandless v. McCord [Case No. 8,678], at March term, 1835.
IV 

House Calendar No. 154 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 817 

[Report No. 110–447] 

Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill 

(H.R 3074) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for 

the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 13, 2007 

Mr. ARCURI, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; 

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R 3074) making appropriations for 

the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and 

Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal 

year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it 

2 shall be in order to consider the conference report to ac3 company the bill (H.R. 3074) making appropriations for 

4 the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and 

5 Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal 

mstockstill on PROD1PC71 with BILLS

2 

•HRES 817 RH 

1 year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes. 

2 All points of order against the conference report and 

3 against its consideration are waived. The conference re4 port shall be considered as read. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC71 with BILLS

mstockstill on PROD1PC71 with BILLS

House Calendar No. 154 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 817 

[Report No. 110

–447] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the conference report 

tember 30, 2008, and for other purposes. lated agencies for the fiscal year ending Sepand Housing and Urban Development, and repriations for the Departments of Transportation, to accompany the bill (H.R 3074) making approNOVEMBER 13, 2007 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 

mstockstill on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1








CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Robert Bryan Crutchfield, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of MedCareers Group, Inc. on Form 10-K for the annual period ended January 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of MedCareers Group, Inc.





By:/s/ Robert Bryan Crutchfield


Robert Bryan Crutchfield


Chief Executive Officer


(Principal Executive Officer)





May 14, 2010
Exhibit 32.1   CERTIFICATION   Each of the undersigned officers of American Smooth Wave Ventures, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K/A to which this certification is attached (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.    Date: December 21, 2010/s/ Neville PearsonNeville Pearson, President
(the Principal Executive Officer)    Date: December 21, 2010/s/ Neville PearsonNeville Pearson, Chief Financial Officer
(the Principal Financial Officer)   This certification is being furnished and not filed, and shall not be incorporated into any document for any purpose, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or the Securities Act.
POMEROY

CLARKSTON

FLORA

TROY

WENAHA-TUCANNON

WILDERNESS

DAYTON

T. 5 N

R. 44 E

47

HOPKINS RIDGE

PATAHA CREEK ROAD

40

MOUNTAIN ROAD

41

42

44

43

46

64

9115

9233

118

128

201

105

128

235

127

100

US-12

T. 7 N

T. 9 N

T. 8 N

T. 5 N

T. 6 N

T. 4 N

T. 10 N

T. 3 N

R. 41 E

R. 43 E R. 42 E R. 40 E

R. 44 E

R. 45 E

ASOTIN - CL OVERLAND ROAD

PEOLA - IRON SPRINGS ROAD

KENDALL-SKYLINE ROAD

ASOTIN CREEK - CAMPBELL GRADE

WE ST MO U NTAIN ROAD

ED EN BENCH ROAD

SOUTH FORK - SMOOTHING IRON

LICK CR EEK ROAD

CUMMINGS CREEK

GROUSE FLAT ROAD

RUCHERT ROAD

US-12

WA-126

WA-129

 ̄

SOUTH GEORGE

PROJECT AREA

ATTENTION

This product is reproduced from geospatial information

prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest

Service. GIS data and product accuracy may vary. They

may be: developed from sources of differing accuracy,

accurate only at certain scales, based on modeling or

interpretation, incomplete while being created or

revised. etc... Using GIS products for purposes other

than those for which they were created may yield

inaccurate or misleading results. The Forest Service

reserves the right to correct,update,modify,or replace

GIS products without notification.

Asotin Creek

IRA

Wenatchee Creek

IRA

Washington State

Umatilla National Forest

Pomeroy Ranger District

Donna Dixon

GIS Specialist

11/19/2011

Pomeroy Ranger District

Umatilla National Forest

South George Project Planning Area

Vegetation and Fuels Management Project

Vicinity Map
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.15

                  SCHEDULE OF MANAGEMENT STABILITY AGREEMENTS


  EMPLOYEE                                                DATE OF AGREEMENT
  --------                                                -----------------

Keith D. Booke                                               August 1, 1997
Mary Rose Brown                                           February 25, 1999
Jay D. Browning                                              August 1, 1997
Michael S. Ciskowski                                         August 1, 1997
S. Eugene Edwards                                         February 25, 1999
John D. Gibbons                                              August 1, 1997
James A. Greenwood                                           August 1, 1997
John F. Hohnholt                                          February 25, 1999
Gregory C. King                                              August 1, 1997
John H. Krueger                                              August 1, 1997
William N. Latham                                            August 1, 1997
Robert R. Taylor                                             August 1, 1997
T. Wyatt Stripling                                           August 1, 1997
Exhibit 10.49

 

ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT OF TIMOTHY C. CREW

 

THIS ADDENDUM (the “Addendum”) to the Employment Agreement (as defined below) is made and entered into as of March 28, 2018 (the “Effective Date”) by and between Timothy C. Crew (“Executive”) and Lannett Company, Inc. (“Company”).

 

WHEREAS, Executive and Company are parties to that certain Employment Agreement effective as of January 2, 2018 (the “Employment Agreement”);

 

WHEREAS, Executive and Company now wish to amend the Employment Agreement as set forth below.

 

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration of $1,000.00, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, it is hereby agreed that the Employment Agreement is amended as follows:

 

1.             Section 9(b) is amended to remove the following sentence at the end of the second paragraph of such section: “Executive also resigns with ‘Good Reason’ if he provides written notice of his resignation within thirty (30) days after a Change in Control (as defined below) in the event that such Change in Control occurs on or before December 31, 2018.”

 

2.             For the sake of clarity, nothing in Section 9(c) is intended to limit in any way Executive’s right to Severance Pay as set forth in Section 9(b) if a Termination without Cause occurs more than 24 months after a Change in Control.

 

3.             Except to the extent expressly modified by this Addendum, all terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain the same and in full force and effect.

 

4.             This Addendum, together with the Employment Agreement, represents the complete agreement between the parties and cannot be altered or amended except by a subsequent writing signed by all parties.

 











 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Addendum has been executed by the parties as of the Effective Date.

 

	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/   Samuel H. Israel
    	
 
    	
/s/   Timothy C. Crew
    
	
Witness:   Samuel H. Israel
    	
 
    	
Timothy   C. Crew
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
March 28,   2018
    	
 
    	
March 28,   2018
    
	
Date
    	
 
    	
Date
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
LANNETT   COMPANY, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Jeffrey Farber
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
Jeffrey   Farber
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
Chairman   of the Board of Directors
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
March 28,   2018
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Date
From: martin.bodrog@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:17:07 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,

Martin Bodrog

Annandale, VA 22003
FILED

July 30, 1998

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

DON L. HANCOCK, )

) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9710-CR-00489

Appellant, )

) DAVIDSON COUNTY

VS. ) (No. 2554 Below)

)

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) The Hon. Thomas H. Shriver

)

Appellee. ) (Dismissal of Habeas Corpus Petition)

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court upon the state’s motion requesting that the

judgment in the above-styled cause be affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of

Criminal Appeals Rules. Finding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the

appellant’s claim, we affirm the denial of the appellant’s petition for habeas corpus relief.

In this appeal, the appellant contends that his sentence is expired based on

sentence credits to which he claims he is entitled but was not given. In denying relief, the

trial court found that it was without jurisdiction to review the calculation of sentence

reduction credits. 

A habeas corpus petition must contain allegations suggesting either that the

petitioner's convictions are void or that his sentence has expired. Otherwise the petition

is facially invalid and subject to summary dismissal. Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157

(Tenn.1993). Habeas corpus relief is not available to challenge Department of Correction

matters that have no bearing on the validity of the restraining conviction, the resulting

sentence, or the expiration of the sentence. See, e.g., State v. Warren, 740 S.W.2d 425,

428 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1986). Thus, complaints regarding sentence credit miscalculations

that relate to release eligibility short of full service of the sentence do not warrant habeas

corpus relief.

In the present case, the appellant’s contention deals with inactions by the

Department of Correction relative to properly crediting him with sentence reduction credits.

As the trial court concluded, the appellant’s claim does not state a ground for habeas
-2-

corpus relief.

Accordingly, based on our review of the appellant’s brief, the state’s motion,

and the record in this case, we conclude that this is an appropriate case for affirmance

under Rule 20.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the judgment of the trial court is

affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rules. The appellant

being indigent, costs are taxed to the state.

_____________________________

DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE

CONCUR:

_____________________________

JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE

_____________________________

THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE