alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: bssra21@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:48:04 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,

Fran DaGrossa

,
From: Lee Clayton

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Monday, August 08, 2011 3:07:07 AM

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,

Lee Clayton
SPARKMAN, Arkansas
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (0.94 MB)
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
From: ratherbeinparis@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:56:36 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,

JoAnne Larson

Colorado Springs, CO 80921
From: Kristen Van Tassell

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Respect Women"s Right to Contraception!

Date: Saturday, August 13, 2011 7:37:49 AM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept the 

recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of preventive care under the new 

health care law, and to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive services are 

a critical element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to necessary health 

care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access to 

contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive services, are 

pushing the government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the 

exemption to apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be 

exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If 

granted, this larger exemption would deny access to thousands of women just because of where they 

work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s 

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.

Kristen Van Tassell
# OAR Box 1669 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# $J&S ll-E-1 4 Docket Number: 

# A-98-1 3

Printed 9/23/20089:36:49 AM Sheet 82 of 110 P. 1P. 2 

# A-W 3 ||-£f-<4 '

From : Date : Contact : Company : Telephon e Contac tRepor t Organi c Liquid s Distributio n NESHAP Greg LaFlam , Pacifi c Environmenta l Services , Inc . (PES )

i — Novembe r 6,199 7 ; Mr . Mar k Saxton Suppor t Termina l Services , Inc. , Texa s City , T X 

# L . &',\

\ 

### 3 £ $ [, J ,t , ii i f LjOCivt T Telephon e Number : (409 ) 948-356 1 Contac tSummary : Mr . Saxto n discusse d th e Texa s Cit y facility' s environmenta

l contro l situation . Th e facilit y operate s unde

r SI C cod e 4226 . Som

e ofth e storag e tank s ar

e vente d to enclose d flares . Som e tan k truc k loading s ar

e closed , whil e other s ar

e open . He als o state d tha

t som e railca r loading s (suc h a s acrylates ) ar e controlle d usin g vapor

balance . Ther

e ar e 5 0 truc k loadin g positions , each of

whic h i s capabl e o f

bein g vapo

r controlle d (vapo

r balanc e or

liqui d scrubber/carbo n caniste

r control) . The facilit

y als o ha s alea

k detection/repair

progra mfo r th e storag e tank s use d to stor

e product s wit

h avapo r pressur e >0. 5 psia , an

d o n equipmen

t component s (weekly visual , quarterl y instrumen

t monitoring) . Th e facilit y ha s tw o NPDE S permits . On e applie s to wate

r discharge d to th e ba

y afte r testing , whil e th e othe

r applie s to atreatmen

t syste mtha t use s "bugs " to reduc e pollutants . Th e facilit y i s amajo

r source , an

d doe s no t hav e aTitl e V permit

(onl y aStat e permit) . The

y prepar e a n annua l emission s inventor

y fo r th e State .
ines
Posblonoi s EGULATL

BRANCH

a _ 2G > age | of
s JEC1203911C sep tang

As of: September 01, 2011
Received: August 15, 2011

Status: Posted

PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: September 01, 2011
Tracking No. 80ce1b4a

‘(Comments Due: September 30, 2011
Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0017
Requirement for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers to Provide Coverage of
Preventive Services under the PatientProtection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0017-0038
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services
under Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment

Document: IRS-2010-0017-0128
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: Bruce Alan MacCracken
Address:

1615 Lombard Ave.

Everett, WA, 98201
Email: macnamy@earthlink.net
Phone: 425-252-5744

General Comment

All women should have complete free access to birth control and preventive treatment through
their health care coverage. Employers should not be allowed to prevent their employees from
accessing preventative measures based on religious or any other grounds.

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectId=09000... 9/1/2011
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6516** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. ANTHONY CURTIS BULLOCK, a/k/a Dirty , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence
. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. ( 4:11

- cr - 00416

- TLW

- 3; 4:15

- cv - 04212

- TLW )

Submitted : May 16, 2016 Decided: June 10, 2016

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FL OYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Anthony Curtis Bullock, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Anthony Curtis Bullock seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). 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) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bullock 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 legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Kandahar PRT begins team transition
 By Chief Master Sgt. Richard Simonsen , Regional Command-East Public Affairs
  
 KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (June 27, 2011) — The Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team began the transition to a new team of Sailors, Soldiers, and Airmen with a mounted combat patrol to Sub-District 2 in Kandahar City June 25. The incoming team takes over for a crew that began operating in Nuristan province last November. The Rockstars of 2nd Platoon, Company B, 1st Battalion, 181st Infantry Regiment was the security force for the PRT that completed more than 200 missions in four provinces and two regional commands. They will be replaced by a security force made up of the Vikings of 1st Platoon, Company A, 1st Battalion, 182nd Infantry Regiment. U.S. Army 1st Lt. Michael Lutkevich, the Rockstar platoon leader from Medford, Mass., was on nearly every mission and has high hopes for the incoming crew. “Although our tour in Afghanistan is coming to a close, I can’t help but feel bittersweet emotions,” said Lutkevich. “I am highly confident the Vikings will not only fill our shoes, but will be able to take the next steps forward.” It was the first mounted combat patrol for many of the Vikings of the new security force, but they have completed more than two months of pre-deployment training at Camp Atterbury, Ind., as well as months of training at home station in Rhode Island. “These guys have a lot of good information,” said U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Vidal Demedeiros, a Viking squad leader from Lincoln, R.I., speaking of the Rockstars. “We also trained on regular infantry tactics, marksmanship and combat lifesaving skills while back in Rhode Island.” The mission this day was to deliver solar lighting components to a construction site in Sub-District 2 of Kandahar City. It was the first mounted combat patrol for U.S. Army 1st Lt. Alec Augustine-Marceil, a civil affairs officer for the incoming crew of the Kandahar PRT from Marshall, Wis. “It felt exceedingly normal,” said Augustine-Marceil. “It is the first time I have been walking around Afghanistan with a cadre of security that is facing a real threat. But with the training I and my team have had, this didn’t feel like anything we hadn’t done before.” The civil affairs component of the incoming crew is made up of U.S. Army Reserve Soldiers of Company C., 432nd Civil Affairs Battalion from Green Bay, Wis. “Personally, I kind of asked to be a jack of all trades,” said Augustine-Marceil. “I hope I can spend my time on this deployment by facilitating and coordinating with others on the team so they can accomplish their missions.” The systematic turnover process between the teams is part of a relief in place, transition of authority process that ensures a smooth handover between incoming and outgoing units. “There are so many people to meet and there are so many relationships established we need to tap into,” said Augustine-Marceil. The incoming PRT takes over authority in early July.
[No. 2436.]

#### Schuch v. McGuire.

Evidence — Impeaching Witness — Instructions.

In an effort to impeach a witness on the ground that his general reputation for truth and veracity in the community where he resided was bad, where two witnesses testified to his bad reputation, it was error to instruct the jury to disregard the testimony of the impeaching witnesses as the testimony of two witnesses was insufficient to impeach.

*Appeal from the County Court of Teller County.*

Messrs. Temple & Crump, for appellant.

Maxwell, J.

From a judgment rendered against appellant, defendant below, on an appeal from a justice of the peace, is this appeal.

There being no pleadings we gain a knowledge of the issues from the evidence.

*249It appears that the parties to this suit had had some difficulty which they undertook to adjust by an appeal to arms. Plaintiff contended that a horse, his property, was killed by a shot from a rifle fired by the defendant, and sued for the recovery of the value of the horse.

Twenty-two witnesses testified at the trial, equally divided in number between the parties. Some twenty to thirty shots were fired, the defendant admitting that he fired at least ten shots.

Defense was that the defendant did not kill the horse and that he acted in self-defense.

As to what took place immediately preceding the shooting and until the termination of the affray, the plaintiff, his wife and the defendant were the only witnesses.

Plaintiff and his wife testified that defendant fired the ' first shot. This the defendant denied, thereby raising a question of veracity between himself and the plaintiff and his wife upon this point.

As to the other matters involved, they became, by the testimony of plaintiff and defendant, peculiarly questions of veracity between the parties.

■The defendant undertook to directly impeach the plaintiff by proof that his general reputation for ■ truth and veracity in the community in which he resided, was bad, and for this purpose introduced two witnesses — F. Morris and J. A. Noble — who testified upon direct examination that they were acquainted with the reputation for truth and veracity of the plaintiff in the community in which he lived and that it was bad.

At the' close of defendant’s testimony the court *sua sponte*instructed the jury: "Gentlemen of the jury. You will disregard the testimony of F. Morris and J. A. Noble respecting the reputation of the plaintiff, Dr. McGuire, as to truth and veracity. It *250is not sufficient to impeach on the testimony of two witnesses.”

This ruling of the court was excepted to and is the only error assigned upon which a reversal of the judgment is asked,.

We know of no rule of law or practice which requires more than two witnesses to directly impeach a witness.

The above ruling was error and it cannot be said that it was not prejudicial to the defendant, for which reason the judgment must be reversed.

Reversed.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-11300

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cr-00012-MW-GRJ-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MARCUS CHATMAN, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(July 24, 2015)

Case: 14-11300 Date Filed: 07/24/2015 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Marcus Chatman appeals his 180-month prison sentence, imposed after a 

jury convicted him of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 

18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). Chatman argues the district court erred by 

sentencing him under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 

U.S.C. § 924(e) and U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4(a), based on his prior convictions for 

possession with intent to sell cocaine, in violation of Florida Statutes § 893.13(1). 

Chatman contends his prior § 893.13 convictions do not qualify as 

ACCA-predicate “serious drug offense[s]” under § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii) because they 

lack a mens rea requirement. 1

 Chatman’s sole argument on appeal is foreclosed 

by United States v. Smith, 775 F.3d 1262, 1264, 1267–68 (11th Cir. 2014), which 

held convictions for possession with intent to sell a controlled substance, in 

violation of § 893.13(1), qualify as “serious drug offense[s]” under 

§ 924(e)(2)(A)(ii). We therefore affirm.

AFFIRMED.

 1

 We review de novo whether a prior conviction qualifies as an ACCA “serious drug 

offense.” United States v. Robinson, 583 F.3d 1292, 1294 (11th Cir. 2009).

Case: 14-11300 Date Filed: 07/24/2015 Page: 2 of 2