alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Lynne Divis

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 5:09:31 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, especially since it violates Americans' freedom of religion as enshrined

in the Constitution.

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. Pregnancy

is not a disease; abortion and contraceptives aren't health care.

This rule is unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it must be stricken.
Sincerely,

Lynne Divis

Wintersville, Ohio
From: nbhilyard@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Preventive Care support

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:08:59 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.

Nann Blaine Hilyard

Winthrop Harbor, Illinois
From: sam0345@myuw.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: HealthCare Regarding Pregnancy

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 5:33:18 PM

To Whom This May Concern:

I would like to respectfully make it known that pregnancy is not a disease and that reasonable and

robust conscience protections should be enacted for all Americans, not just "religious employers."
No. 480.

#### McNeese et al. *v.*Board of Education for School District 187, Cahokia, Illinois, et al.

*John W. Rogers*and *Earl E. Strayhorn*for petitioners.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**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 Cardinal Communications, Inc. (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of
      the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
      certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:




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 our operations.




Date:May
                22, 2006
            By:*/s/
                Edouard A. Garneau*Name:Edouard
                A. GarneauTitle:Chief
                Executive OfficerDate:May
                22, 2006
            By:*/s/
                Ronald S. Bass*Name:Ronald
                S. BassTitle:Principal
                Accounting Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authentications, 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 Cardinal Communications, Inc. and will
      be
      retained by Cardinal Communications, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 15.1      November 7, 2003   Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549  Commissioners:   We are aware that our report dated November 7, 2003 on our review of interim financial information of NSTAR for the three and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2003 and 2002 and included in the Company's quarterly report on Form
10-Q for the quarter then ended is incorporated by reference in its Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-78285) and in its Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-78285, 333-85559 and
333-87272).   Very truly yours,   PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
From: Ellen

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: IMPLEMENTATION OF PREVENTIVE CARE

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 1:55:29 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: Beatrice Michel

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: contraception coverage

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 7:56:11 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.

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.

Sincerely,

Beatrice Michel, O.D.

-- 

Please note my new e-mail address is b.michel87@gmail.com
Page 1 of 1

REC NPI210

AE 3 NG
TEP 3 Auld

LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION
PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS
BRANCH As of: September 03, 2010

PUBLIC Status Posted

posted: September 03, 2010
SU BMISSION Comments Due: August 16, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0010
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Rules Relating to Status as a Grandfathered
Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Afforable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0010-0001
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage: Interim Final Rules for Relating to Status as
a Grandfathered Health Plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Document: IRS-2010-0010-0648
Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488

Submitter Information

Name: Laura J Goldman
Address:

9823 Dungan Rd

Philadelphia, 19115
Email: laurag0099@yahoo.com
Phone: 215-969-0099
Government Agency Type: Federal
Government Agency: HRSA

General Comment

See attached file(s)

Attachments

IRS-2010-0010-0648.1: Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=P... 9/3/2010


August 12, 2010

Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight
Department of Health and Human Services

Attention: OCIIO-999 1—IFC

P.O. Box 8016

Baltimore, MD 21244-1850

Re: Interim Final Rule for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating to
Status as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

As a consumer I wish to take this opportunity to formally comment on
the interim final rule regarding health plans and “grandfather” status (Document ID IRS-2010-
0010-0001).

I believe the consumer protections included as part of the new health care law are vitally
important and should be extended to as many people as possible. Accordingly, every effort
should be made to increase the number of individuals covered by the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (PPACA) via the above regulations. The triggers or conditions that would
extend these protections to consumers under currently existing “grandfathered” plans should not
be weakened or reduced in any way. I specifically support the position and detailed comments
offered by the American Chiropractic Association with respect to the implementation of these
regulations.

Laura Goldman
**NIH Office of Extramural Research
        [ Search This Site ]               [ Document Index ]               [ Site Map ]Return To NIH Guide Home Page:     [ Graphical Version ]     [ Text Version ]
*For Weeks Ending:*
- December 24  December 18December 11
- December 4  November 27November 20
- November 13  November 6October 30
- October 23  October 16October 9
- October 2  September 25September 18
- September 11  September 4August 28
- August 21  August 14August 7
- July 31  July 24July 17
- July 10  July 2June 26
- June 19  June 12June 5
- May 29  May 22May 15
- May 8  May 1April 24
- April 17  April 10April 3
- March 27  March 20March 13
- March 6  February 27February 20
- February 13  February 6January 16
- January 9   *Go To OER:     [ Graphical Version ]     [ Text Only Version ]
web posting: 1998/11/03*Webmaster*      *

**
#### Denmond *v.*Hillyer, for use, etc.

Argued June 22,

Decided December 21, 1907.

Claim. Before Judge Wright. Floyd superior court. December 4, 1906.

*Henry Wallcer,*for plaintiff in error. .

*Junius F. Hillyer*and *W. M. Henry,*contra.

Lumpkin, J.

1. Where upon the call of a ease counsel entered upon the trial thereof without making any motion for a continuance or any suggestion of his client’s absence, or of his desire to have her present, or of the materiality of her evidence, it will not necessitate the grant of a new trial that she made affidavit that for several days before the trial she was ill and could not attend the trial and testify, or communicate with her counsel; especially where the statement contained in her affidavit as to the evidence which she would have given was of the vaguest and most general character.

2. Where property was levied on as belonging to a woman and was claimed by her daughter, and on the trial was found subject, newly discovered evidence of a witness, that while the claimant was working for wages, her mother bought the property in dispute and partly paid therefor from the proceeds of the daughter’s wages, did not require the grant of a new trial. Under the general issue of subject or not subject, such evidence would not likely change the result; nor does it appear that such facts were unknown to the claimant, though not communicated by ' her to her counsel.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices coneur, except Holden, J., who did. ■ not preside.*
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-40227

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ESTEBAN CASABON-RAMIREZ, also known as Esteban Casabon, 

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:16-CR-714-1

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Esteban Casabon-Ramirez appeals following his guilty plea conviction 

and sentence for illegal reentry. He asserts that the district court plainly erred 

by convicting, sentencing, and entering judgment against him under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326(b)(2) based upon its determination that his prior New York conviction 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 15, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-40227 Document: 00514275206 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2017
No. 17-40227

2

for sexual abuse qualified as a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) and 

therefore an “aggravated felony” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F). 

Casabon-Ramirez argues that the definition of a “crime of violence” in 

§ 16(b) is unconstitutionally vague on its face in light of the Supreme Court’s 

holding in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015).1 He concedes that 

his constitutional challenge to § 16(b) is foreclosed by United States v. 

Gonzalez-Longoria, 831 F.3d 670 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc), petition for cert. 

filed (Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 16-6259). The Government has filed a motion for 

summary affirmance based on Casabon-Ramirez’s concession.

The parties are correct that Gonzalez-Longoria forecloses CasabonRamirez’s facial constitutional challenge to § 16(b). See Gonzalez-Longoria, 

831 F.3d at 672-77. The Government also moves, in the alternative, to stay 

the appeal until the Supreme Court decides whether § 16(b) is 

unconstitutionally vague in Sessions v. Dimaya, 137 S. Ct. 31 (2016) (granting 

certiorari). Gonzalez-Longoria is binding precedent unless overruled by this 

court en banc or by the Supreme Court, and a grant of certiorari does not 

override this court’s precedent. See Wicker v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 155, 157-58 

(5th Cir. 1986).

Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the 

district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative 

motions to stay the appeal and for an extension of time to file a brief are 

DENIED. 

 

1 Although Casabon-Ramirez also argues that his New York conviction does not 

constitute an “aggravated felony” under § 16(a) because the New York sexual abuse statute 

sweeps more broadly than the generic definition of crime of violence, we need not reach that 

issue given the result regarding § 16(b).

 Case: 17-40227 Document: 00514275206 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2017
From: Sheila Hodges

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 8:36:39 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. This is America every woman should have a right to choose herself.
H. Res. 252

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

October 5, 2001.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 2883) to authorize appropriations for fiscal

year 2002 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of

the United States Government, the Community Management

Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and

Disability System, and for other purposes. The first reading

of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against

consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 3(c)

of rule XIII are waived. General debate shall be confined to

the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of

the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under

the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an

original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
2

•HRES 252 EH

minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in

the nature of a substitute shall be considered by title rather

than by section. Each title shall be considered as read. Points

of order against the committee amendment in the nature of

a substitute for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI

are waived. No amendment to the committee amendment in

the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for

that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII and except pro forma

amendments for the purpose of debate. Each amendment so

printed may be offered only by the Member who caused it to

be printed or his designee and shall be considered as read.

At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment

the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with

such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member

may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment

adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the

committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and

amendments thereto to final passage without intervening mo-
3

•HRES 252 EH

tion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
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 (1.45 MB)
 
 US 5th Fleet CMF NAVCENT King Bahrain
 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
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of United Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Randall M.
Greenwood, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted pursuant to Section 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.


/s/ Randall M. Greenwood
-------------------------------------
Randall M. Greenwood,
Chief Financial Officer

March 29, 2006