alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Jennifer Schwope

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: I support access to preventive care.

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 11:06:04 PM

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.

-- 

Jenny L. Schwope
From: Elizabeth Gifford

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Do not allow organizations to deprive women of their health rights for "religious refusal"

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 5:57:55 PM

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.
No. 499, Misc.

#### Wimbush *v.*Maryland.

Court of Appeals of Maryland. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FIRECOM,
INC.'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET, STATEMENT OF INCOME AND STATEMENT OF CASH
FLOW FOR THE YEAR ENDED APRIL 30, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>     1,000
       
<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                          APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                      4,204
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                               3,144
<ALLOWANCES>                                  400
<INVENTORY>                                 1,501
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            9,262
<PP&E>                                      1,488
<DEPRECIATION>                                823
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             10,049
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       2,705
<BONDS>                                         0
<COMMON>                                      138
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                                  4,805
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               10,049
<SALES>                                    14,145
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           14,145
<CGS>                                       8,293
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               8,293
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            4,460
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              417
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            116
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               859
<INCOME-TAX>                                  305
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           554
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  554
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 .05
        

</TABLE>
June 10, 2015

Mr. John West 44 Old Country Road Westhampton, NY 11977

Dear Mr. West:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your May 18, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015- 1742), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
From: kathy potts

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:31:36 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,

kathy potts
Jackson, Michigan
From: Kerry Costanzo

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Friday, August 12, 2011 5:16:08 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,

Kerry Costanzo
Strasburg, Virginia
EXHIBIT 32

                         CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of CommScope, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
each of the undersigned officers of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 results of
          operations of the Company.

By:   /s/ Frank M. Drendel
     --------------------------
     Frank M. Drendel
     Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Date: August 11, 2003

By:  /s/ Jearld L. Leonhardt
     --------------------------
     Jearld L. Leonhardt
     Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Date: August 11, 2003


<PAGE>
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, SIXTH DISTRICT, AT TEXARKANA

No. 06-14-00040-CV

Tillerd Ardean Smith, Medallion Transport & Logistics, LLC, Tomy Rushing d/b/a 

Rushing Transport Services, Inc.

v.

Brandi Williams

(No. 12-0889 IN 71ST DISTRICT COURT OF HARRISON COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

REPORTER'S RECORD

SUPP REPORTER'S RECORD

INDIGENT

FILING

STATEWIDE EFILING FEE

SUPREME COURT CHAPTER 51 FEE

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$5,430.00

$160.00

$25.00

$100.00

$20.00

$50.00

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

PAID

UNKNOWN

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

KIMBERLY CUELLAR-JIMENEZ

JOHN R MERCY

JOHN R MERCY

KIMBERLY CUELLAR-JIMENEZ

DEBRA BOSSE

TAUNTON, SNYDER & SLADE

WRIGHT & CLOSE

DEBRA BOSSE

DEBRA BOSSE

DEBRA BOSSE

DEBRA BOSSE

Balance of costs owing to the Sixth Court of Appeals, Texarkana, Texas: 0.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, DEBRA AUTREY, CLERK OF THE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE 

STATE OF TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct 

copy of the cost bill of THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH DISTRICT OF 

TEXAS, showing the charges and payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, 

as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, 

witness my hand and the Seal of 

the COURT OF APPEALS for 

the Sixth District of Texas, this 

August 13, 2015.

DEBRA AUTREY, CLERK

By ___________________________

Deputy
No. 410, Misc.

#### Wilson *v.*Murphy, Warden, et al.

Court of Appeals of New York. Certiorari denied.
From: Marc Pilisuk

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: <no subject>

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:46:41 AM

Preventive health care services for women should be a guaranteed right for all women.

Peace, 

Marc

Marc Pilisuk, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus, The University of California

Professor, Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center

494 Cragmont Ave. 

Berkeley, Ca 94708

Ph 510-526-1788

/fax 510-526-0876

http://marcpilisuk.com/bio.html

Who Benefits From Global Violence and War: Uncovering a Destructive System by Marc

Pilisuk with Jennifer Achord Rountree. Westport, CT: Greenwood/Praeger 2008

Peace Movements World-wide (3 volumes) Marc Pilisuk and Michael Nagler (Eds)

Praeger/ABC-clio. Santa Barbara, CA: 2011
Exhibit 23.1
 
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
  To the Board of Directorsof Rogers Communications Inc.
 
 We consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F of:
  –
our Independent Auditors’ Report of Registered Public Accounting Firm dated February 28, 2011 on the consolidated balance sheets of Rogers Communications Inc. (the “Company”) as at December 31, 2010 and 2009 and the related consolidated statements of income, shareholders’ equity, comprehensive income and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2010
  –
our Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated February 28, 2011 on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010
 
 each ofwhich is incorporated by reference in this annual report on Form 40-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.  Our Independent Auditors’ Report of Registered Public Accounting Firm dated February 28, 2011 makes reference to the adoption of new accounting pronouncements related to business combinations, consolidated financial statements and non-controlling interests in 2010.
 
 We also consent to the incorporation by reference of such reports in Registration Statement No. 333-163265 on Form F-9 and Registration Statement No. 333-170234 on Form F-3D of Rogers Communications Inc.
 
 
 /s/ KPMG LLP
 Chartered Accountants, Licensed Public Accountants
 
 
 Toronto, Canada
 February 28, 2011
From: Rosella and John Valentine

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Support the recommendations of the Institure of Medicine!

Date: Thursday, August 18, 2011 11:29:40 AM

As a proud member of the AAUW (American Association of University Women), I join

our organization in asking you to follow the recommendations of the Institute of

Medicine with regard to coverage of preventive care under the new health care law.

Please reject exemptions for religious employers!!!! These services are critical to

providing women better access to necessary health care.

Rosella Todd Valentine
#### CLARK *v.*LOUISIANA.

No. 626, Misc.

Decided December 17, 1962.

*Luke A. Petrovich*for appellant.

Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.
From: Jo Ann Wiese

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: I oppose the Definition of Religious Employer in Health Care Rules

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 1:39:37 PM

The current definition of religious employer does not provide true conscience

protection for those committed to preserving life. Health care plans should not be

forced to violate the moral and religious convictions of providers or employees in

order to participate in the health care system. Requiring such an unacceptable

demand threatens both universal access to health care and religious freedom of

conscience.

Jo Ann Wiese

641 Cardinal Drive

Woodway, TX 76712
i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No s. 04 -0 8- 00 84 7- CR & 04 -0 8- 00 84 8- CR

F e li x HER

NA ND EZ , Appellant
v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 290th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas Trial Court Nos. 2007CR9885 & 2007CR5616B Honora ble Sharon Mac Rae, Judge Pre siding PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: Febr uary 11, 2009 DI SMI SSED Th e tr ia l c ou rt ’s c e rt if

ic a tio n in e a c h o f t he se a pp e a ls s ta te s th a t th e c a se is a “ ple a -b a rg a in
c a se , an d th e de fe nd a nt h a s N O r ig ht o f a pp e a l.” Rul e 25 .2 (d ) o f t he Te xas R

ule s o f A pp e llate Procedur e provide s, “[t] he appe al m ust be dis missed if a certification that shows the defe ndant has a rig ht of appe al has not bee n made pa rt of the rec ord under the se rules.” T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(d).04
- 08
- 00 84 7- CR & 04
- 08
- 00 84 8- CR

- 2- Appellant’s c ounsel has filed w ritten notice with thi s co u rt that counsel ha s review ed the
rec ord and “ca

n find no rig ht of appe al for A ppellant.” We construe this noti ce a s an indication that appellant will not seek to file a n amende d tri al co u rt cer tification showing that he has the rig ht of appea l. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 2 5. 2( d) ; 37 .1 ; se e als o D an ie ls v . S tat e , 1 1 0 S. W. 3 d 1 7 4 , 1 77 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 20 0 3 , n o p et.). In light of the rec ord pre sented, we ag ree with appellant’s
c ou ns e l th a t Ru le 25 .2 (d ) r e qu ir e s th is c ourt to d ism iss the se a

pp e a ls. Ac c or din g ly , th e se a pp e a ls
are dismiss ed. PER C URI AM DO NO T PU B L I SH
From: Janis K. Westlund

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Reject exemptions for "religious employers"

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 8:26:07 PM

We 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.

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

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions. Thank

you for your consideration.

David Westlund

Janis Westlund
No. 436.

#### Strachan Shipping Co. *v.*Koninklyke Nederlandsche Stoomboot Maalschappy, N. V.

*E. D. Vickery*for petitioner.

*William M. Kimball, Eugene Underwood*and *Clarence S. Eastham*for respondent.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
From: Ken Armstrong

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: HHS mandate insurance for contraceptives

Date: Friday, August 05, 2011 7:29:09 PM

TO: HHS

I am writing in regards to the final Act of HHS which fails to ensure respect for

conscience by mandating insurance coverage of prescription contraceptives, and

abortifacients. I am opposed to the definition of "religious employer" within the

context of a lack of true conscience protection. The "religious employer" language is

too narrow and applicably negates most religious employers of the U.S.

Jill Armstrong
From: Anne K. Taylor

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Health Care for women

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 8:49:40 PM

Contraception is essential to women’s health!

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.
From: Connie Young

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Objection to Mandated Insurance Coverage of Contraceptives and Abortifacients

Date: Friday, August 05, 2011 8:52:56 PM

REgarding the referenced subject, I oppose the very narrow definition of

"religious employer" because it does not allow for true conscience protection!

Please consider broadening the definition to allow more true conscience

protection.

Thank you, Connie Young