alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Marge Hinson

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 7:43:51 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Marge Hinson
Lucernemines, Pennsylvania
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6301

ROY LEE MCDOUGALD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THEODIS BECK, Secretary, North Carolina

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior

District Judge. (5:06-hc-02056-H)

Submitted: June 21, 2007 Decided: June 28, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roy Lee McDougald, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge III,

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Roy Lee McDougald seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that McDougald has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 14 - 00387 - CR STEVEN DEWAINE HILL, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 47th District Court Potter County, Texas Trial Court No. 68,260 -

A, Honorable Dan L. Schaap, Presiding 

### July 15 , 2015 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. Appellant, Steven Dewaine Hill, was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, of more than one gram but less than four grams. 1 Appellant entered a plea of “True” to two enhancement paragraphs contained in the indictment. 2 The trial court sentenced appellant to 30 years ’ confine ment in the

1 See T EX
. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN . § 481.115(a), (c) (West 2010).
2 See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 12.42(d) (West Supp. 2014).2

Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant appealed the trial court’s judgment. We will affirm. Appellant ’ s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw . Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id

. at 744 - 45. In compliance with High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court’s judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of h is right to file a pro se response in this matter. Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The Court has also advised appellant of h is right to file a pro se response. Additionally, appellant’s counsel has certified that he has provided appellant with a copy of the record to use in preparation of a pro se response . See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319
- 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant has filed a response. By his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds an d agree with counsel that the3

appeal is frivolous. 3 We have also reviewed the response filed by appellant. We have found no arguable grounds contained in the response. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted, and the trial court ’ s judgment is affirmed.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice

Do not publish

3 Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant = s right to file a pro se petition for discr etionary review . See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 48.4.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 168 (Thursday, August 31, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 60199]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18870]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 15055-001]


Northern States Power Company; Notice of Environmental Site 
Review

    On September 27, 2023, at 3:00 p.m. (Central Daylight Time), 
Commission staff and Northern States Power Company (Northern States 
Power), the applicant for the Gile Flowage Storage Reservoir Project 
No. 15055 (project), will conduct an environmental site review of the 
project. All interested individuals, agencies, Indian Tribes, non-
governmental organizations, and other stakeholders are invited to 
attend.
    The site review will include the project dam, spillway, 
impoundment, and recreational facilities associated with the project, 
and will commence at the adjacent Gile Park. Please note that all 
participants are responsible for their own transportation to/from the 
project and during the site review tour. If you are interested in 
attending, or have questions regarding the site review, please contact 
Matthew Miller of Northern States Power via email at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ec818d989884899bc286c281858080899eac948f89808982899e8b95c28f8381"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0a676b7e7e626f7d246024676366666f784a72696f666f646f786d7324696567">[email protected]</span></a>, or telephone at (715) 737-1353 on or 
before Friday, September 22, 2023.
    Participants will meet at Gile Park located at 14 Park Street, 
Gile, Wisconsin 54525. Participants should arrive early for 
coordination purposes and to begin the tour promptly at 3:00 p.m. 
Additionally, participants must wear sturdy, closed-toe shoes, or 
boots.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports 
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission 
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, 
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access 
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For 
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as 
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is 
encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#59160909193f3c2b3a773e362f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b7f8e7e7f7d1d2c5d499d0d8c1">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: August 25, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-18870 Filed 8-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-20277

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

OSCAR MEJIA DIAZ, also known as Oscar Diaz Mejia, also known as Oscar

Diaz-Mejia, also known as Oscar Mejia-Diaz, also known as Oscar Mejia, also

known as Pedro Gutierrez, also known as Leonides Mejia, also known as

Leonides Diaz Mejia, also known as Marcos Torres Mejia, also known as

Leonides Metia,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:10-CR-834-1

Before DAVIS, WIENER, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Oscar Mejia Diaz pleaded guilty to one count of

illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2) and was sentenced to

a 29-month term of imprisonment, near the top of the applicable sentencing

guidelines range of 24 to 30 months. He argues on appeal that his sentence is

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 27, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 11-20277 Document: 00511707121 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/27/2011
No. 11-20277

greater than necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and

that the sentencing court failed to consider his estranged wife’s poor health and

the needs of their children. He properly acknowledges that his argument that

the illegal reentry guideline is “penologically flawed” and lacks an empirical

basis is foreclosed by circuit precedent. See United States v.

Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009).

When, as here, the district court has imposed a sentence within a properly

calculated guidelines range, the sentence is entitled to a presumption of

reasonableness. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 351 (2007). Review is for

abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52 (2007). Mejia Diaz

has not shown that the sentencing court considered any irrelevant or improper

factors or that the court made a “clear error of judgment” in weighing the

§ 3553(a) factors. United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). 

Accordingly, he has failed to demonstrate that his sentence is unreasonable. See

Rita, 551 U.S. at 347, 351.

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 11-20277 Document: 00511707121 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/27/2011
Amendment to the 1997 Plan, effective as of March 2, 2004



 Exhibit 10.11 
  
 Amendment to the 
 Toys “R” Us, Inc. Amended and Restated 
 1997 Employee Stock Option Plan 
  
 The Toys “R” Us, Inc. Amended and Restated 1997 Employee Stock Option Plan (the
“Plan”) is hereby amended, effective as of March 2, 2004, as follows. 
  
 1. The following sentence shall be added to the end of Section 2.2: 
  
 “Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, from and after June 30, 2003, no shares surrendered in payment of the exercise price of Options or taxes related to Options, shall be available for subsequent awards of
Options under the Plan.” 
  
 2. Except as specifically amended hereby, the
Plan shall remain in full force and effect as prior to this Amendment. 
  
 The
Company has caused this Amendment to be executed as of the day and year first above written.
----------------------------------------------------------------

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

Page 1 of 1 

LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION 


PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS 


RRANC'H 
 As of: August 18, 2010 

Received: August 09, 2010 

Status: Posted 

Posted: August 18, 2010 

Tracking No. 80b2c612 

PUBLIC 

SUBMISSION Comments Due: August 16, :2010 

Submission Type: Web 

Docket: IRS-2010-0010 

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Rules Relating to Status as a Grandfathered 

Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Afforable Care Act 

Comment On: IRS-2010-0010-0001 

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage: Interim Final Rules for Relating to Status as 

a Grandfathered Health Plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

Document: IRS-2010-0010-0161 

Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488 

Submitter Information 

Name: David Michael Wootton 

Address: 

12295 Macon Road 


Collierville, TN, 


-------------------------------------------------------------,---­

General Comment 

See attached file(s) 

Attachments 

IRS-2010-0010-0161.1: Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488 

http://fdms.erulemaking.netlfdms-web-agency 1componentlsubmitter InfoCoverPage?Call =... 8/18/2010 
8/9/10 

Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight 

Department of Health and Human Services 

Attention: OCIIO-9991-IFC 

P.O. Box 8016 

Baltimore, MD 21244-1850 

Re: Interim Final Rule for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating to 

Status as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

As a consumer I wish to take this opportunity to formally comment on 

the interim final rule regarding health plans and "grandfather" status (Document ID IRS-2010­

00 I 0-000 I ). 

I believe the consumer protections included as part of the new health care law are vitally 

important and should be extended to as many people as possible. Accordingly, every effort 

should be made to increase the number of individuals covered by the Patient Protection arId 

Affordable Care Act (PPACA) via the above regulations. The triggers or conditions that would 

extend these protections to consumers under currently existing "grandfathered" plans should not 

be weakened or reduced in any way. I specifically support the position and detailed comments 

offered by the American Chiropractic Association with respect to the implementation of these 

regulations. 

David Wootton
# Euroopa Liidu C 151/8. j

| | ISSN 1725-5171 |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopa Liidu
  Teataja | C 151 |
| | |
| Eestikeelne väljaanne | Teave ja teatised | 47. köide8. juuni 2004 |

ISSN 1725-5171

Euroopa Liidu

Teataja

C 151

Eestikeelne väljaanne

Teave ja teatised

47. köide8. juuni 2004

---

| Teatis nr | Sisukord | Lehekülg |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Teave |
| | Komisjon |
| 2004/C 151/1 | Euro vahetuskurss | 1 |

Teatis nr

Sisukord

Lehekülg

I   Teave

Komisjon

2004/C 151/1

Euro vahetuskurss

1

| ET | |
| --- | --- |

ET

---

I Teave

Komisjon

| 8.6.2004 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 151/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2004

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 151/1

---

Euro vahetuskurss (1)

7. juuni 2004

(2004/C 151/01)

1 euro=

| | Valuuta | Kurss |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | USA dollar | 1,2319 |
| JPY | Jaapani jeen | 135,36 |
| DKK | Taani kroon | 7,4335 |
| GBP | Inglise nael | 0,67025 |
| SEK | Rootsi kroon | 9,1333 |
| CHF | Šveitsi frank | 1,5242 |
| ISK | Islandi kroon | 87,33 |
| NOK | Norra kroon | 8,1860 |
| BGN | Bulgaaria lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Küprose nael | 0,58300 |
| CZK | Tšehhi kroon | 31,270 |
| EEK | Eesti kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Ungari forint | 251,75 |
| LTL | Leedu litt | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Läti latt | 0,6638 |
| MTL | Malta liir | 0,4266 |
| PLN | Poola zlott | 4,6492 |
| ROL | Rumeenia leu | 40 803 |
| SIT | Sloveenia talaar | 239,1400 |
| SKK | Slovakkia kroon | 39,950 |
| TRL | Türgi liir | 1 816 967 |
| AUD | Austraalia dollar | 1,7521 |
| CAD | Kanada dollar | 1,6592 |
| HKD | Hong Kongi dollar | 9,6024 |
| NZD | Uus-Meremaa dollar | 1,9569 |
| SGD | Singapuri dollar | 2,0996 |
| KRW | Korea won | 1 427,96 |
| ZAR | Lõuna- Aafrika rand | 7,9842 |

Valuuta

Kurss

USD

USA dollar

1,2319

JPY

Jaapani jeen

135,36

DKK

Taani kroon

7,4335

GBP

Inglise nael

0,67025

SEK

Rootsi kroon

9,1333

CHF

Šveitsi frank

1,5242

ISK

Islandi kroon

87,33

NOK

Norra kroon

8,1860

BGN

Bulgaaria lev

1,9558

CYP

Küprose nael

0,58300

CZK

Tšehhi kroon

31,270

EEK

Eesti kroon

15,6466

HUF

Ungari forint

251,75

LTL

Leedu litt

3,4528

LVL

Läti latt

0,6638

MTL

Malta liir

0,4266

PLN

Poola zlott

4,6492

ROL

Rumeenia leu

40 803

SIT

Sloveenia talaar

239,1400

SKK

Slovakkia kroon

39,950

TRL

Türgi liir

1 816 967

AUD

Austraalia dollar

1,7521

CAD

Kanada dollar

1,6592

HKD

Hong Kongi dollar

9,6024

NZD

Uus-Meremaa dollar

1,9569

SGD

Singapuri dollar

2,0996

KRW

Korea won

1 427,96

ZAR

Lõuna- Aafrika rand

7,9842

---

(1)

Allikas: EKP avaldatud viitekurss.

---
<PAGE>   1


Exhibit 11.1            Statement Regarding Computation of Earnings Per Share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                       Three Months Ended                        Nine Months Ended
                                          September 30,                             September 30,
                                    1997                 1996                1997                  1996
                                    ----                 ----                ----                  ----
<S>                             <C>                  <C>                <C>                   <C>
Pro forma net income (loss)
                                $    88,559          $    44,275        $    76,542          $   (114,528)
                                ===========          ===========        ===========          ============
Pro forma net income (loss)
per  share (primary)
                                $      0.02          $      0.01        $      0.02          $      (0.04)
                                ===========          ===========        ===========          ============
Weighted average common and
common equivalent shares
outstanding(a)
                                  4,727,892            3,468,211          3,971,384             3,578,102
                                ===========          ===========        ===========          ============
Pro forma net income (loss)
per share (fully diluted)
                                $      0.02         $       0.01        $      0.02          $      (0.04)
                                ===========         ============        ===========          ============
Weighted average common and
common equivalent shares
outstanding(a)
                                  4,746,753            3,490,000          3,971,384             2,578,102
                                ===========         ============        ===========          ============

</TABLE>

----------
(a)    Weighted average common and common equivalent shares outstanding have
       been calculated using the treasury stock method. Fully diluted 
       computations have not been presented in the Condensed Consolidated 
       Statements of Operations because the effect is not material.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6570

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN LEE COBBS, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-95-193, CA-99-1657-2) Submitted: September 29, 2000 Decided: October 19, 2000 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Lee Cobbs, Appellant Pro Se. Laura P. Tayman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: John Lee Cobbs seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Moreover, as to Cobbs’ claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, because he did not first present this claim to the districtcourt, and because he has not demonstrated plain error or a miscarriage of justice, he is entitled to no relief upon this claim. See Muth v. United States , 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). Finally, we conclude that any error in Cobbs’ sentence, in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. , 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000), is harmless. See United States v. Nordby , F.3d , 2000 WL 1277211, at *6 (9th Cir. Sept. 11, 2000) (No. 99-10191).Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Cobbs , Nos. CR-95-193; CA-99-1657-2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 17, 2000). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
From: Helen Bradley

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 9:12:12 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Helen Bradley

PO Box 65

Omena, MI 49674