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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:37:02 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,

clemie barry

, 78229-4932
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND RELATED NOTES
CONTAINED IN THIS FILING AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         300,635
<SECURITIES>                                   120,571
<RECEIVABLES>                                  356,994
<ALLOWANCES>                                    21,264
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               801,807
<PP&E>                                         208,542
<DEPRECIATION>                                  90,194
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 990,780
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          519,454
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,267
<OTHER-SE>                                     469,059
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   990,780
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               277,674
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  226,679
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,771
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  69
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 54,481
<INCOME-TAX>                                    20,727
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             33,754
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    33,754
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13
        

</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 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

DOUGLAS HIGGINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

HENRY RICHARDS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5692 RBL/KLS

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Karen L.

Strombom, objections to the Report and Recommendation, if any, and the remaining record, does

hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 22) is GRANTED;

(3) Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. # 3) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and

(4) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff, counsel for defendants

and to the Hon. Karen L. Strombom.

DATED this 26th day of October, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05692-RBL Document 31 Filed 10/26/06 Page 1 of 1
EX-10.7





 Exhibit 10.7 

ST FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. 

AMENDMENT TO 2008 STOCK PLAN 

On May 23, 2013, the shareholders of ST Financial Group, Inc. (the “Company”) at a duly called annual meeting of
shareholders approved an amendment to the ST Financial Group, Inc. 2008 Stock Plan (the “Plan”) to increase the number of shares of Company common stock available for issuance under the Plan from 1,828,938 to 2,600,000 shares. 

 

	
	
	/s/ Dean O. Bass
	Dean O. Bass, Chairman and CEO
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 40890

MELVIN JOHNSON, III , Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.
CRAIG ESTLINBAUM; SHARON KELLER, Presiding Judge; LAWRENCE E. MEYERS; CHERYL JOHN SON, Judge; MIKE KEASLER, Judge , Defendant s
- Appellee s

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 3:15

- CV

- 130

Before PRADO, OWEN, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Melvin Johnson, III, Texas prisoner # 1626767 , filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against a Texas d istrict court j udge and the judges of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals , alleging that he was denied a f air opportunity to present facts in support of his state habeas application . The district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, and it denied Johnson ’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. The court certified that the appeal wa s not

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 19, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-40890 Document: 00513598742 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/19/2016No. 15

- 40890
taken in good faith. By moving for IFP status in this court, Johnson is challenging the district court’s certification. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Johnson’s argument that his claims for prospective injunctive and decla ratory relief are cognizable under § 1983 fails. Here, Johnson challenged alleged constitutional defects in the state habeas proceedings

— c laims which he concedes cannot form the basis for federal habeas relief. See M oore v. Dretke , 369 F.3d 844, 846 (5th Cir. 2004) . Moreover, a review of his pleadings demonstrates that the only remedy he sought against the Texas judges was in the nature of mandamus relief. Federal courts, however, do not have the authority to direct a state court’s actions under the cir cumstances alleged by Johnson. See Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb Cn ty

. Superior Court , 474 F.2d 1275, 1275

- 76 (5th Cir. 1973)

. Johnson’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219

- 20 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, we deny the IFP motion and dismiss the appeal. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202; 5 TH C IR

. R . 42.2. The dismissal of the appeal as frivolous counts as a “strike” for purposes of the “three strikes” bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387

- 88 (5th Cir. 1996) . Johnson is WARNED that if he accumulates at least three strikes under § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed in a court of the United States while he is incarcerated or detained in a ny facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

2 Case: 15-40890 Document: 00513598742 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/19/2016
1 Thomas H. Adams, Executive Director American Coal Ash Association 15200 E. Girard Ave., Suite 3050 Aurora, CO 80014 720.870.7987 fax – 720.870.7889 www.acaa-usa.org 

# ACAA 

# Memo

To: Mathy Stanislaus, EPA Assistan t Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response From: Thomas Adams CC: Barry Breen, Matt Hale, John Sager Date: August 4, 2009 Re: Stigma Studies

During our meeting of July 24, 2009, the subject of stigmatization effects on consumer acceptance was discussed. The ACAA and its end-user representativ es each stated that any type of a Subtitle C regulation for disposal of coal ash would stigmatize coal ash as a “hazardous waste”. We believe this stigma would severely cripple beneficial uses as consumers would elect to use materials that did not include a hazardous waste. A request was made to provide case studies on the subject. Unfortunately we cannot find any case history information on this subject. It appears that in order to provide this information we would have to engage an academic institution or private consulting firm to research the topic. With the aggressive target dates to develop a regulation for coal ash disposal we cannot engage a vendor and accomplish this task in time for consideration of the results of such research. We can point to some important considerations on the stigma issue.

• While some “hazardous wastes” are widely used by individuals and industry, these materials are reprocessed before being released to the mark etplace. In some cases the reprocessed material is still considered to be a hazard ous waste unde r certain fede ral and state regulations. Coal ash products are not generally reprocessed.

• For many of the hazardous wastes recycled and re sold there are few, if any alternative products for the consumer to choose. This is not the case with coal combustion products (CCPs). There are competitive products available for virt ually each CCP. Marketers of the competitive products would use the infe rence that CCPs are hazardou s wastes even if EPA exempted certain beneficial uses from hazardous waste regulation.

• Many of the hazardous wastes currently recycled and resold go into industrial markets exclusively. This is not the case with CCPs. CCPs are used in a wide variety of markets ranging including agricultural applications to construction of homes and hospitals. Hazardous wastes are not welcome in those settings.
**Dry Sorbent Injection (using Sodium Bicarbonate)**

**Cost Item Units**  **Kiln 1 Capital Costs**  **Purchased Equipment Cost (PEC)** Equipment Cost (EC) $ 1,022,500 Instrumentation $ 10% 102,250 Sales Tax $ 3% 30,675 Freight $ 5% 51,125 **Total PEC $**  **1,206,550 Direct Installation Cost (DC)**  Foundation and Supports$ 12% 144,786 Handling and Erection $ 40%482,620 Electrical $ 1%

-- Piping $ 30%361,965 Insulation $ 1% 12,066 Painting $ 1%

-- **Total DC $**  **1,001,437 Indirect Installation Cost (IC)**  Engineering $ 10%

-- Construction and field expenses $ 10% 120,655 Contractor Fees $ 10% 120,655 Performance Test $ 1% 12,066 Contingencies $ 3% 36,197 **Total IC $**  **289,572 Total Capital Investment (TCI), PEC+DC+IC**  **2,497,559**

**Annual Costs Direct Annual Costs (DAC)**  Reagent Usage Ratio 4.63 Reagent Usage lb/hr 33 Reagent Usage lb/yr 260,021 Reagent Usage ton/yr 130 Reagent Price $/ton 375 Reagent Cost $/yr 48,754 Waste Generated ton/yr 65 Waste Disposal Price $/ton 50 Waste Disposal Cost $/yr 3,242 Aux Power kW/hr 67 Aux Power kWh/yr 528,228 Aux Power Price $/kW 0.05 Aux Power Cost $/yr 26,411 Additional Labor $/yr 59,200**Total DAC 137,608** 

**Indirect Annual Costs (IAC)** Overhead $/yr 60% 35,520 Admin, Taxes, Insurance$/yr 4% 99,902 Annualized Capital Cost $/yr 235,752

**Total IAC 371,174**  **Total Annual Costs (DAC+IAC) 508,782**  1

### Interest Rate 7.0% Equipment Lifetime (years) 20 Capital Recovery Factor 0.094 0.094 2

### SO2 MW 64lb/lbmol 

### SO4 MW 96lb/lbmol

3

### Anode Furnace SO2 emission estimates

**Ctrl Tech Ctrl**  **Efficiency lb/hr**  **TPY** Baseline 0% 8.9 39 DSI 50% 4.5 19.5 **SO 2** 

### Emissions**Notes**

Vendor quote based upon 2,000 CFM flowrate. Not adjusted for Anode Furnace exhaust flowrate 10% of EC, Per EPA Control Cost Manual (CCM), Section 5.2, Chapter 1, Table 1.3 3% of EC, CCM, Section 5.2, Chapter 1, Table 1.3 5% of EC, CCM, Section 5.2, Chapter 1, Table 1.3

CCM, Section 5.2, Chapter 1, Table 1.3 CCM, Section 5.2, Chapter 1, Table 1.3 Included in EC CCM, Section 5.2, Chapter 1, Table 1.3 CCM, Section 5.2, Chapter 1, Table 1.3 Included in EC

Included in EC CCM, Section 5.2, Chapter 1, Table 1.3 CCM, Section 5.2, Chapter 1, Table 1.3 CCM, Section 5.2, Chapter 1, Table 1.3 CCM, Section 5.2, Chapter 1, Table 1.3

SBC, based on NSR=0.8

Includes $225/ton SBC cost and $150/ton transportation cost, "Non EGU_BART_Ch3.xlsx"

Waste consists of SO2 captured as SO4, plus sodium portion of SBC Per contractor calculations for Nelson Plant in "Non EGU_BART_Ch3.xlsx"

67 MW additional pump required to overcome additional pressure head, per Noltech vendor quote Based on 90% annual capacity factor Per contractor calculations for Nelson Plant in "Non EGU_BART_Ch3.xlsx"

See Andover Technology Partners memo, page 17, "C_08_005_Cement Kiln Cost Analysis 2009-03-10.pdf."60% of labor and material costs, per CCM, Section 5.2, Chapter 1, Table 1.4 (used 'additional labor' category in this instance)

4% OF TCI, per CCM, Section 5.2, Chapter 1, Table 1.460% of labor and material costs, per CCM, Section 5.2, Chapter 1, Table 1.4 (used 'additional labor' category in this instance)
Exhibit 32.1

10-K Exhibit 32.1: Certifications 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 Annual Report of iShares® Silver Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Michael A. Latham, Chief Executive Officer of BlackRock Asset Management International Inc., the Sponsor of the Trust, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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,
as amended; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result
of operations of the Trust.

Date: February 26, 2010



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/    Michael A. Latham     
|Michael A. Latham *          
|Chief Executive Officer      
|(Principal executive officer)





|* | The Registrant is a trust and Mr. Latham is signing in his capacity as an officer of BlackRock Asset Management International Inc., the Sponsor of the Registrant.
|- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

In connection with the Annual Report of Artepharm Global Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Harpreet Sangha, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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 result of operations of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of April 14, 2011.

"Harpreet Sangha"Harpreet Sangha
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
No. 57744.

protest 210974-K (New York).

#### Carl Susskind, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers in this case, the court was unable to find anything to overcome the presumption of correctness of the collector’s classification. The protest was therefore overruled.
No. 65258.

#### R. H. Macy & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 58/4722, etc. (New York).

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.
No. 66484.

#### Brown Boveri Corp. and Gehrig Hoban *&*Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/26441 (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of voltage regulators and parts similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Brown Boveri Corp. et al.*v. *United States*(40 Cust. Ct. 168, C.D. 1978), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 27, 2014

p0519 

# Order

Clerk May 27, 2014

147510(70)

AMY M. OGILVIE,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147510

COA: 310935

Alpena CC: 11

- 004212

- DM

ERIC ARLINGTON OGILVIE,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s January 31,

2014 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was

entered erroneously.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 29, 2010

y0322 

# Order

March 29, 2010

139610

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139610 COA: 292936 Kalamazoo CC: 96-000039-FH DONALD LEE BIRD, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the August 18, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered , and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
Before the First Division,

August 6, 1954

No. 58307.

protest 172190-K (Philadelphia) .

#### Brecht Hayes & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

At the trial, it was stipulated that the clean content of the camel hair was 73.1 percent. Accordingly, the merchandise in question was held dutiable at the rate applied by the collector on the basis of 73.1 percent clean content. The protest was sustained to this extent.
From: barbaraj4jesus@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:49:30 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,

Barbara Rupp

Chino, CA 91708
# C_2016342EN.01000101.xml

| 17.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 342/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 342/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8107 — CVC/AR Packaging)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 342/01)

On 25 August 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8107. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8107. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
# CA2006152EN.01000101.xml

| 30.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 152/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 152/1

---

NOTICE TO READERS

Image

---