alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Opposition to exemptions for "religious employers"

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:56:40 PM

To whom it may concern;

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.

I believe that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access to contraceptive

services. When I was younger, my aunt needed a hysterectomy. Her doctor refused to

perform the operation because he believed it was a form of birth control. His personal

beliefs almost allowed my aunt to bleed to death. Fortunately , a nurse stepped in,

summoned another doctor, and my aunt’s life was saved. In small towns across America,

there may not be alternative sources of health care. I live in an urban community where I

have many ways to access health care. Rural women do not.

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. My

employer has no right to limit my access to care.

Sincerely,

C. Briner-Schmidt
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 509 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                              July 27 (legislative day, July 26), 2002.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3009) an Act to 
extend the Andean Trade Preference Act, to grant additional trade benefits under 
that Act, and for other purposes. All points of order against the conference 
report and against its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
considered as read.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
From: Zoe Beck

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Women"s health care & "religious refusals"

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 6:53:50 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.

Please, please make your decision on what is best for ALL women, not what is desired by religious

groups.

Zoe Beck

105 Howe Avenue, Shelton CT 06484
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

________________________

No. ACM S32709

________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Ryan J. Davis

Airman First Class (E-3), U.S. Air Force, Appellant

________________________

Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary

Decided 29 June 2022

________________________

Military Judge: Brett A. Landry.

Sentence: Sentence adjudged on 10 June 2021 by SpCM convened at Luke Air

Force Base, Arizona. Sentence entered by military judge on 15 July 2021: Badconduct discharge, confinement for 6 months, forfeiture of $1,190 pay per 

month for 6 months, reduction to E-1, and a reprimand. 

For Appellant: Major Stuart J. Anderson, USAF; Major Spencer R. Nelson, 

USAF.

For Appellee: Major John P. Patera, USAF; Mary Ellen Payne, Esquire.

Before KEY, ANNEXSTAD, and MEGINLEY, Appellate Military Judges.

________________________

This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30.4.

________________________

PER CURIAM: 

The findings and sentence as entered are correct in law and fact, and no 

error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles

59(a) and 66(d), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(d),
United States v. Davis, No. ACM S32709

2

Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019 ed.). Accordingly, the findings 

and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE

Clerk of the Court
From: tbress@frontiernet.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:09:48 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,

Helen Bressler

Belle Plaine, MN 56011
RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT %7 235 Promenade Street, Providence, R102908-5767 TDD401-222-4462 10 September 2008 David Conroy EPA- New

England, Region I 1 Congress Street, Suite 1100 Boston, MA02114-2023 Dear Mr . Conroy: As you are aware, sections 110(a) (1) and (2) ofthe CleanAir Act (CAA) provide procedural, timing and infrastructure :equirements related to compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) . In 2005, the U .S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) entered into a Consent Decree with EarthJustice which obligates EPAto determine whether states have made the submissions necessary to meet the 110(a)(1) and (2) requirements forthe PMZ,5 NAAQS by 5 October 2008. To meet this obligation, EPAissued a guidance memo on 2 October2007 directing states to review their existing ozone State Implementation Plans (SIPs) and, ifthe existing SIP is adequate to meet the 110(a) requirements, to certify that adequacy in a letter to the EPA . This letter will serve as the required certification for Rhode Island. The guidance memo identifies fourteen elements required under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) . Those elements and the sections ofthe Rhode Island program that are consistent with those elements are identified in the attached table. The Rhode Island SIP, which was approved in May 1972, and its numerous subsequent revisions fulfill most ofthese requirements. Other Section 110(a)(2) requirements are fulfilled in Section 23-23 ofthe Rhode Island General Laws (RIGL) and in the Rhode Island Air Pollution Control Regulations (APCR) that have been incorporated into or submitted to the EPAfor incorporation into the Rhode Island SIP . Ifyou have any questions, please contact Barbara Morin of my staffat (401) 222-4700, extension 7012.

, -, Stephen Majkut, Chief Office ofAir Resources cc. Anne Arnold, EPARegion I

ow " ?Il''f rnt-, ontiurncr filler
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

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    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 (0.15 MB)
 
 With Iraq in the clutches of Saddam Hussein one man made the critical decision to leave his native country.  It took him 20 years but he finall serving with the U.S. Army now attempting to rebuild his nation.  For Spc. Khalid Hermez from Detroit linguist Company F 227th Aviation Brigade 1st Air Cavalry Brigade 1st Cavalry Division 3rd battalion
 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: Tammy Rohane-Henderson

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 11:18:21 AM

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,

Tammy Rohane-Henderson

724 Willow Cove Dr

Murfreesboro, Tn 37128
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7812

MANUEL RAUL REYO PENA GARCIA MONTERO,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GEORGE M.W. BUSH, UnPresident,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-03-2928-WDQ)

Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 26, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Manuel Raul Montero, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Manuel Raul Montero, a federal prisoner, appeals the

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241

(2000) petition under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Montero v.

Bush, No. CA-03-2928-WDQ (D. Md. filed Oct. 27, 2003 & entered Oct.

28, 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
From: Cathie "Pearl" Schneider

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Date: Monday, August 15, 2011 7:53:55 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.

Oran Mor

http://oranmor.freeservers.com
From: Judith Kerfoot

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Preventive Health Services for Women

Date: Thursday, August 18, 2011 11:28:42 PM

To: Dept. of Health and Human Services,

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 Catholic hospitals 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.

Judi Kerfoot
From: Nathan Hetrick

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Coverage of preventive Care

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 10:39:43 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.
From: DIM

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Date: Monday, August 15, 2011 11:44:21 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.
Exhibit
32








SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATION








Each of
the undersigned, S.W. Yong, President and Chief Executive Officer of Trio-Tech
International, a California corporation (the “Company”), and Victor H.M. Ting,
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge (1) the annual
report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended June 30, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.








_/s/_           S. W.
YONG


Name: S. W. Yong


Title:           
President and Chief Executive Officer


Date:           
September 26, 2008





_/s/_           VICTOR H. M.
TING


Name: Victor H. M. Ting


Title:           
Vice President and


Chief
Financial Officer


Date:           September
26, 2008








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
Exhibit 4.105


ADDENDUM No 1

to the

Memorandum of Agreement dated 9th September, 2015 as ("the MOA")


between


THELMA SHIPPING COMPANY LIMITED of Malta (the "Sellers") and

Dryships Inc. (as "Sellers' Guarantor")

and

MAGENTA OWNING COMPANY LIMITED of Marshall Islands (the

"Buyers") and

TMS BULKERS Ltd. (as "Buyers' Guarantor"),

 collectively "the Parties"


For

M.V. MANASOTA

 (the "Vessel")



	1)	This Addendum No. 1 dated 29th September 2015 is supplemental to the MOA governing the sale and purchase of the Vessel and shall form an integral part thereof.  Unless otherwise defined herein, the terms, words and expressions used in this Addendum No. 1 shall have the same meaning ascribed to them under the MOA.






	2)	The Parties hereby agree as follows:






		a.	THAT Clause 5 b) of the MOA (lines 60 and 61) shall be amended so as to read as follows:





Expected time of delivery: 9th September, 2015 – 2nd October, 2015, in Sellers' option.


Date of cancelling (see Clauses 5 c), 6 b) (iii) and 14): 2nd October, 2015 in Buyers' option


 


All other terms and conditions of the MOA, including the performance guarantees by both the Sellers' Guarantor and the Buyers' Guarantor, shall remain in full force and effect.


Clause 16 (Arbitration) of the MOA shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to this Addendum No. 1.


This 29th day of September, 2015
















	
For and on behalf of

 the Sellers

	 	
For and on behalf of


the Buyers


	 	 	 
	
THELMA SHIPPING


COMPANY LIMITED

	 	
MAGENTA OWNING


COMPANY LIMIT I E,D


	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	
By:

	
/s/ Elpiniki Fotiou

	 	
By:

	
/s/ Geoffroy Gunet


	
Name:     Elpiniki Fotiou


Title:      Attorney-in-fact

	 	
Name:    Geoffroy Gunet


Title:      Attorney-in-fact




















	
For and on behalf of


the Sellers' Guarantor

	 	
For and on behalf of


the Buyers' Guarantor


	 	 	 
	
DRYSHIPS INC.

	 	
TMS BULKERS LTD.


	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	
By:

	
/s/ Elpiniki Fotiou

	 	
By:

	
/s/ Geoffroy Gunet


	
Name:     Elpiniki Fotiou


Title:       Senior Vice President,

 Head of Accounting & Reporting

	 	
Name:    Geoffroy Gunet


Title:      Attorney-in-fact
From: Nancy Scheer

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Date: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 2:38:59 PM

As a member of the American Association of University Women (AAUW), I am 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 exemptions for “religious

employers.” These preventive services are a critical element of the new law and would

provide a large number of 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. 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.

Submitted by a woman concerned about the health care provided to all those living in the

U.S.
No. 107, Misc.

#### Halpern *v.*New York.

Court of

Appeals of New York. Certiorari denied.