alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF STAFF LEASING, INC. FOR THE SIX MONTHS
ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 INCLUDED IN FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                              14
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   43,880
<ALLOWANCES>                                       718
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                51,269
<PP&E>                                          21,822
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,185
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  82,116
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           83,370
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           192
<OTHER-SE>                                     (29,475)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    82,116
<SALES>                                        850,530
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               850,530
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  808,019
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                33,430
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   460
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,376
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,667
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,667
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .31
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1265 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 234
110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1265

                          [Report No. 110-710]

 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5749) to provide for a 
            program of emergency unemployment compensation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 11, 2008

    Mr. Arcuri, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5749) to provide for a 
            program of emergency unemployment compensation.

    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5749) to provide for a 
program of emergency unemployment compensation. All points of order 
against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under 
clause 9 of rule XXI. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed 
in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the 
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be 
considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as 
read. All points of order against the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
amended, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 
hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one 
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
    Sec. 2.  During consideration of H.R. 5749 pursuant to this 
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the 
Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to such time as 
may be designated by the Speaker.
                                                 House Calendar No. 234

110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 1265

                          [Report No. 110-710]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5749) to provide for a 
            program of emergency unemployment compensation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 11, 2008

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
From: tgzemail@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:56:44 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,

Ann Kennedy

, 54843-7609
From: Karen Robinson

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Friday, August 05, 2011 4:44:08 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,

Karen Robinson

PO Box 475

Collinsville, CT 06022
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

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

_______________________________________ __ Clerk August 5, 2011

h0802 

# Order

August 5, 2011

143321

___________________ ________________ In re G.M. TALSO, Minor. SC: 143321 COA: 300676 Houghton CC Family Division: 2008-000020-NA

___________________ _________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 2, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          10,035,003
<SECURITIES>                                     4,638,875
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,858,653
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,333,016
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,148,497
<PP&E>                                          33,087,019
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,669,764
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 146,921,154
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,961,108
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           115,541
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,763,101
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   146,921,154
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               114,643,982
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  126,518,269
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (1,251,257)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 344,969
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (10,967,999)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (2,761,816)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (8,206,183)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (8,206,183)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (0.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.54)



</TABLE>
From: eeckelbarger@hughes.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:21:12 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to demand 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 demand you in the

strongest way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of

mandatory preventive services.

Sincerely,

Erich Eckelbarger

Columbus, MI 48063
No. 140, Misc.

#### Wiggins *v.*Kentucky.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky. Certiorari denied.
From: Beth Williams

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Access to women"s health services

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:39:04 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.

While I have heard that some religious hospitals, especially Catholic hospitals, would decline to

participate and thus lose access to Federal funding, I have also heard that some 90% of Catholic

women use birth control. In addition, the children of the affected employees would lose access

along with their parents who may or may not also be Catholic. Some way must be found to insure

all women access to women's health care - if not through private insurance at these institutions,

then through some separate publicly available low cost women's health care insurance.
_, tas JA
LEGAL PROCESSING Di VISION he G-1H03 GW-/C Page | of 1
PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS SEP 0 2 20H

RANCH

‘As of: September 02, 2011
Received: August 16, 2011
Status: Posted

PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: September 02, 2011

Tracking No. 80ee24ea
‘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-2010-0017-0146
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Unknown &
Submitter Information

Submitter's Representative: NARAL Pro-Choice America

General Comment

I strongly support the new policy requiring health-insurance plans to cover birth control without a
copay, CMS-9992-IFC2, Thank you for this important improvement to women’s health care.

T also want you to know that I am concerned that certain religious employers may be allowed to
opt out of the requirements. All women should have access to contraceptive coverage, regardless

of where they work.

This policy finally should make near-universal access to birth control
a reality for all women who use it.

Improving women's access to birth control is positive in so many ways.
A woman who can plan when to have a family is able to participate in
society more fully. Allowing women to space their pregnancies
contributes to healthy childbearing, And ultimately, fewer unintended
pregnancies can reduce the need for abortion.

Thank you for following science-based recommendations and making
women's health a priority.

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectId=09000... 9/2/2011
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-10043 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. JERONIMO BERNAL-GARCIA Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:07-CR-77-ALL Before STEWART, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jeronimo Bernal-Garcia pled guilty to one count ofpossession with intent todistribute 500grams or more ofmethamphetamine and was sentenced to 168 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. The district court’s judgment was entered on October 10, 2007. On December 13, 2007, Bernal-Garcia filed a pro se motion to file an out-of-time appeal arguing that trial counsel failed tofile a timely notice ofappeal despite having been asked to doso. He also sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal and the United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 13, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 08-10043

2 appointment of appellate counsel. The district court denied Bernal-Garcia’s motion to file an out-of-time appeal as untimely because it was not filed within thirty days of the expiration of the appeal period as required by F E D. R. A PP. P. 4(b)(4). Further, because the motion was untimely, the district court determined that Bernal-Garcia was not entitled to proceed IFP or to the appointment of appellate counsel. Bernal-Garcia filed a timely notice of appeal from the district court’s denial of his motion. He also filed motions to proceed IFP on appeal and for the appointment of appellate counsel. The district court granted Bernal-Garcia’s IFP motion but denied his motion for the appointment of appellate counsel. Bernal-Garcia now moves this court for leave to proceed IFP on appeal and for the appointment of appellate counsel. Because the district court has granted Bernal-Garcia’s motion to proceed IFP on appeal, the IFP motion before this court is denied as moot. Further, this court can dismiss an appeal during consideration of an interlocutory motion if the appeal “is frivolous and entirely without merit.” 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2. BernalGarcia did not file a notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of the criminal judgment. See F ED. R. A PP. P. 4(b)(1)(A). His motion to file an out-oftime appeal was filed beyond the time for extending the appeal period under F ED. R. A PP. P. 4(b)(4). Thus, the district court did not err in enforcing the time limitations set forth in Rule 4(b), and this court may not reverse its decision to do so. See United States v. Leijano-Cruz, 473 F.3d 571, 574 (5th Cir. 2006). Because the instant appeal is without arguable merit, Bernal-Garcia’s motion for the appointment ofappellate counsel is denied, and the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2. APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS DENIED.
From: Kathe Garbrick

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: I Support Access to Preventive Care and Contraception

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 10:52:08 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.
May 22, 2015

Jared Nelson

4627 Addison Street Boca Raton, FL 33248

Dear Mr. Jared Nelson:

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 March 26, 2015, exemption request on behalf into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-775), 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