alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Ellen Markham

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Friday, August 05, 2011 8:41:19 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,

Ellen Markham
Dubuque, Iowa
From: stan.fuller@gd-ais.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:55:11 AM

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,

Stan Fuller

Dayton, OH 45431
From: markrchamplin@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:39:42 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,

Mark R. Champlin

Albuquerque, NM 87111
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF:

N.R.S.,

A CHILD. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 21

- 00163

- CV

Appeal from the

112th Judicial District Court

of Crockett County, Texas

(TC# 21

- 02

- 08131

- CV )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below.

It appearing to this Court that Appellant is indigent for purposes of appeal, this Court makes

no other order with respect thereto. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 9 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER , 20 22

.

JEFF ALLEY

, Justice

Before Rodriguez

, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6150

DAVID EDWARD CRAWLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAN A. BRAXTON; ASSISTANT WARDEN ARMENTROUT; LIEUTENANT HONAKER; B. EDMOND, Hearing Officer; G. BAYES, QMHP; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HAMPTON; W. WOODS, Correctional Officer; W. SYKES, Correctional Officer; S. DEEL, Correctional Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-1057-7) Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 22, 2003 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Edward Crawley, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: David Edward Crawley appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Crawley v. Braxton , No. CA-02-1057-7 (W.D. Va. Jan. 8, 2003). 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.

AFFIRMED
file:///C|/..._List_29-08-2011_12-55-54-352/Document%20List%2029-08-2011%2012-55-54-352_docs/EBSA-2010-0018-DRAFT-0062.html[8/29/2011 2:42:37 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: August 29, 2011

Received: August 24, 2011

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 80eec06e

Comments Due: September 30, 2011

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0018

Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of

Preventive Services Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0018-0002

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services under

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment

Document: EBSA-2010-0018-DRAFT-0062

Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: Bee Jay Reichelt

General Comment

Since birth control drugs and abortion inducing drugs are commercially available, women that wish to

use these drugs can easily obtain them. No one is trying to make them illegal even if they are

harmful both to the women taking them and the baby. However, forcing employers to pay for these

drugs is unfair and violates their religious and conscientious rights by these new guidelines and its

narrow religious exemptions. I urge HCC to withdraw the Interim Final Rule that created these

illegalyl narrow religious exemption. Please replace it with an exemptin that will allow ALL employers

to follw their conscience as it relates to providing birth control or abortion inducing drugs. thank you.
From: doantracey@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:46:20 AM

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,

Tracey Doan

Azusa, CA 91702
#### Richard Kelly, Respondent, *v.*James T. Penfield et al., Appellants.

*Kelly*v. *Penfield,*144 App. Div. 903, affirmed.

(Argued November 27, 1912;

decided December 17, 1912.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered April 11, 1911, modifying and affirming as modified a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action by an abutting owner to restrain the obstruction of an alleged street.

*Henry Willis Smith*and *William T. Tomlinson*for appellants.

*Rufus L. Weaver*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Vann, Werner, Chase and Collin, JJ.
1
                                                     Exhibit 15.1





November 13, 2002




Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Commissioners:


We are aware that our report dated November 13, 2002 on our
review of interim financial information of NSTAR (the "Company")
as of and for the period ended September 30, 2002 and included in
the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter then
ended is incorporated by reference in its Registration Statements
on Form S-4 dated May 12, 1999 (File No. 333-78285), Form S-8
dated August 19, 1999 (File No. 333-85559), and Form S-8 dated
April 30, 2002 (File No. 333-87272).



Yours very truly,


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
From: mosesnaaron@metrocast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:36:19 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,

Sharon Thorpe

Meredith, NH 03253
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A23A0034. HECTOR BAUTISTA v. THE STATE.

Following a January 2018 jury trial on a charge of malice murder, Hector

Bautista was convicted of voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense and

was sentenced to serve 20 years in confinement. In 2020, this Court affirmed

Bautista’s conviction. Bautista v. State, Case No. A19A2125 (decided January 16,

2020). Over two yearslater, in June 2022, Bautista filed a pro se pleading titled “Plea

in Absentia.” In this pleading, Bautista purported to accept the State’s pretrial plea

offer of a recommended sentence of 10 years to serve in confinement in exchange for

Bautista’s guilty plea to a reduced charge of felony involuntary manslaughter. The

trial court dismissed the filing as an invalid attempt by Bautista to challenge his

conviction and sentence. Bautista then filed this direct appeal from the order of

dismissal. As explained below, this appeal must also be dismissed.

The pleading filed by Bautista shows that regardless of its nomenclature, it

sought to set aside or vacate his conviction and sentence for voluntary manslaughter.

See State v. Bell, 274 Ga. 719, 719 (1) (559 SE2d 477) (2002) (when a court

considers pleadings, substance controls over nomenclature); Sledge v. State, 312 Ga.

App. 97, 98 (1) (717 SE2d 682) (2011) (“[c]ourts should examine the substance of

a motion, rather than its nomenclature, to determine whatsort of relief issought”). As

the Supreme Court of Georgia has made clear, however, a post-conviction motion

challenging the validity of a conviction and seeking to set aside or vacate the same

is not a valid procedure in a criminal case. See Roberts v. State, 286 Ga. 532, 532

(690 SE2d 150) (2010); Williams v. State, 283 Ga. 94, 94 (656 SE2d 144) (2008).

Thus, any effort to appeal from the denial of such a motion must be dismissed.

August 11, 2022
Roberts, 286 Ga. at 532; Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216, 218 (2) (686 SE2d 786)

(2009). Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

08/11/2022
Exhibit 99.1


                    Report of Independent Accountants

To the Shareholders and Trustees of NSTAR:

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance
sheet of NSTAR and its subsidiaries as of September 30, 2002 and
the related condensed consolidated statements of income,
comprehensive income and retained earnings for each of the three-
month and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2002 and 2001
and the condensed consolidated statement of cash flows for the
nine-month periods ended September 30, 2002 and 2001. These
financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's
management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established
by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A
review of interim financial information consists principally of
applying analytical procedures to financial data and making
inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting
matters.  It is substantially less in scope than an audit
conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion
regarding the financial statements taken as a whole.
Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material
modifications that should be made to the accompanying condensed
consolidated interim financial statements for them to be in
conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States of America.

We previously audited in accordance with auditing standards
generally accepted in the United States of America, the
consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2001, and the
related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income,
retained earnings and of cash flows for the year then ended (not
presented herein), and in our report dated January 31, 2002, we
expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial
statements.  In our opinion, the information set forth in the
accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet as of December
31, 2001, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation
to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
November 13, 2002
From: caribbeanwannabe@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:56:28 AM

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,

Monika Oeltjen

Farmington, MN 55024
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

.



# United States Court of Appeals

**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

MICHAEL E. DUZENSKI,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

, Respondent

______________________

2024

- 1927

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection

Board in No. CH

- 0752

- 22

- 0043

- I

- 1.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the parties’ joint stipulation of

voluntary dismiss al pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 42(b),

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :

(1) The stay is lifted, and the appeal is voluntarily dismissed. Case: 24-1927 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 08/28/2024DUZENSKI v. MSPB 2

(2) The parties shall bear their own costs.

August 2 8 , 2024

Date F OR THE C OURT

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: A ugust 28, 2024 Case: 24-1927 Document: 15 Page: 2 Filed: 08/28/2024
No. 145, Misc.

#### Cuomo *v.*New York.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*William I. Siegel*for respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York. Certiorari denied.
No. 417.

#### Pinder et al. *v.*United States.

*Jacob Kossman*for petitioners.

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg*and *Julia P. Cooper*for the United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.