alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Daniel Charbonneau

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Thursday, August 04, 2011 8:31:18 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,

Daniel Charbonneau
Hooksett, New Hampshire
From: Sabina Kania

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 12:38:18 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,

Sabina Kania

326-03 Pennell Circle

Tallahassee, FL 32310
ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________________________________ )

UNITED STATES SUGAR )

CORPORATION

, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) Docket No. 11

- 11 08

) (and consolidated cases)

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL )

PROTECTION AGENCY, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

___________

________________________ )

N OTICE OF FILING RESPONSE

TO REMAND OF THE RECORD

Respondents United S tates Environmental Protection Agency, et al.,

(collectively “EPA”) hereby gives notice of filing the att ached Response to the

remand of the record ordered by the Court in its Order of May 15, 2014, ECF No.

1493171.

Respectfully submitted,

SAM HIRSCH

Acting Assistant Attorney General USCA Case #11-1108 Document #1502494 Filed: 07/14/2014 Page 1 of 32 /S/ Norman L. Rave, Jr.

NORMAN L . RAVE, JR.

PERRY ROSEN

Environmental Defen se Section

Environment & Natural Resources Division

United States Department of Justice

P.O. Box 7611

Washington, D.C. 20044

(202) 616

- 7568

July 14 , 2014 Counsel for Respondents USCA Case #11-1108 Document #1502494 Filed: 07/14/2014 Page 2 of 33 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify th at on this 14 th day of July , 201 4 , I caused a copy of the

foregoing document to be served by the Court’s CM/ECF system on all counsel of

record in this matter.

/S/ Norman L. Rave, Jr.

Norman L. Rave, Jr. USCA Case #11-1108 Document #1502494 Filed: 07/14/2014 Page 3 of 3USCA Case #11-1108 Document #1502494 Filed: 07/14/2014 Page 1 of 16USCA Case #11-1108 Document #1502494 Filed: 07/14/2014 Page 2 of 16USCA Case #11-1108 Document #1502494 Filed: 07/14/2014 Page 3 of 16USCA Case #11-1108 Document #1502494 Filed: 07/14/2014 Page 4 of 16USCA Case #11-1108 Document #1502494 Filed: 07/14/2014 Page 5 of 16USCA Case #11-1108 Document #1502494 Filed: 07/14/2014 Page 6 of 16USCA Case #11-1108 Document #1502494 Filed: 07/14/2014 Page 7 of 16USCA Case #11-1108 Document #1502494 Filed: 07/14/2014 Page 8 of 16USCA Case #11-1108 Document #1502494 Filed: 07/14/2014 Page 9 of 16USCA Case #11-1108 Document #1502494 Filed: 07/14/2014 Page 10 of 16USCA Case #11-1108 Document #1502494 Filed: 07/14/2014 Page 11 of 16USCA Case #11-1108 Document #1502494 Filed: 07/14/2014 Page 12 of 16USCA Case #11-1108 Document #1502494 Filed: 07/14/2014 Page 13 of 16USCA Case #11-1108 Document #1502494 Filed: 07/14/2014 Page 14 of 16USCA Case #11-1108 Document #1502494 Filed: 07/14/2014 Page 15 of 16USCA Case #11-1108 Document #1502494 Filed: 07/14/2014 Page 16 of 16
From: dccorn@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:58:51 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,

Cindy Cornette

Wichita, KS 67205
Exhibit 31.1 Sarbanes - Oxley Section 302 Certification  I, Thomas J. May, certify that:1.I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of NSTAR;2.Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of NSTAR as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;4.NSTAR's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for NSTAR and have:a)designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to NSTAR, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;b)designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c)evaluated the effectiveness of NSTAR's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report, based on such evaluation; andd)disclosed in this quarterly report any change in NSTARs internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, NSTARs internal control over financial reporting.5.NSTAR's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to NSTAR's auditors and the audit committee of NSTAR's board of trustees:a)all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect NSTAR's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in NSTAR's internal control over financial reporting.   Date:  August 1, 2007By:/s/ THOMAS J. MAYThomas J. MayChairman, President andChief Executive Officer
LAW OFFICE OF RHONDA HARRIS BUCKNER

34145 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, #314

DANA POINT, CALIFORNIA 92629

VOICE: 949.218-3253

FAX: 949.218.3254

Via Email e-ORI@dol.gov

Office of Regulations and Interpretations,

Employee Benefits Security Administration

Room M-5655

U.S. Dept. of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue NW

Washington D.C. 20210

Re: Claims Procedure Regulations for Plans Providing 

Disability Benefits Examination

RIN No.: 1210-AB39

Regulation: 29 C.F.R. §2560.503-1

Dear Deputy Assistant Secretary Hauser,

This letter is regarding the Department’s proposed delay of the final regulations. The 

proposed delay is of serious concern as it raises issues about the transparency in the rulemaking process. 

As I am sure you are aware, the Department finalized rules after an extensive notice and 

comment period that provided 60 days and yielded numerous comments from those 

concerned. Given I have practiced ERISA law for over 25 years, I submitted comments 

during the comment period as did many of my colleagues who practice ERISA law and 

represent insureds too often adversely impacted by it. Insurers and plans also 

commented, suggesting there were cost issues associated with implementing the rules. 

Those comments were merely speculative and rarely supported. Given many industry 

comments asked for more time to adjust to the new rules, the Department honored that 

request by significantly delaying the effective date. 

Now, we are told that other input is being relied upon - information that could have been 

contributed during the proper notice and comment period but was not. The ERISA 

participants and their representatives have no way to respond to this input, since it is not 

being made fully available. Further, the very short 15-day notice and comment period 

does not provide time to make a FOIA request to reveal what is influencing this process. 

The industry study that the Department is now proposing further diminishes the fairness 

of the process. The industry will collect data in a way that will be hidden from the 

public, and based on this, the Department proposes to make a new decision on how to 

protect participants’ rights via reasonable procedures in the adjudication of the disability 

benefits. This seems designed to permit the twisting of facts to favor one set of interests 
over another. Plan participants cannot effectively comment or even provide their own 

“study,” since they are not in possession of the data and, likely, do not have the resources 

to process it. 

I ask that the effective date of the regulations not be delayed because the reason for doing 

so lacks transparency and thereby undermines the fundamental sense of trust and fairness 

that should be inherent in this rule-making process. 

Thank you, 

Rhonda Harris Buckner
#### Jeannette Corse, Respondent, v. Joshua S. Peck and Nathan Peck, Appellants.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Bockes, J.

Mem. oy Learned, P. J., dissenting.
From: lea.martin@kctcs.edu

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:49:06 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,

Lea Martin

Westville, OH 43083
EXHIBIT 12.3

PACCAR AND SUBSIDIARIES  COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES  PURSUANT TO SEC REPORTING REQUIREMENTS  (Thousands of Dollars)

|                                   |                                                   | Year ended December 31            
|---------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------
|
|FIXED CHARGES                      |                                                   |                                   
|                                   | Interest expense                                  |                                   
|                                   |                                                   | PACCAR and Subsidiaries (1)       
|                                   |                                                   | Portion of rentals deemed interest
|                                   |                                                   |                                   
|TOTAL FIXED CHARGES                |                                                   | $                                 
|                                   |                                                   |                                   
|EARNINGS                           |                                                   |                                   
|                                   | Income before taxes  PACCAR and Subsidiaries (2) |                                   
|FIXED CHARGES                      |                                                   |                                   
|                                   |                                                   |                                   
|EARNINGS AS DEFINED                |                                                   | $                                 
|                                   |                                                   |                                   
|RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES |                                                   |                                   

---

---

QuickLinks
file:///C|/..._List_29-08-2011_12-55-54-352/Document%20List%2029-08-2011%2012-55-54-352_docs/EBSA-2010-0018-DRAFT-0063.html[8/29/2011 2:42:37 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: August 29, 2011

Received: August 25, 2011

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 80eed536

Comments Due: September 30, 2011

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0018

Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of

Preventive Services Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0018-0002

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services under

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment

Document: EBSA-2010-0018-DRAFT-0063

Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: Anna 

Address: Atlanta,

General Comment

Upon reading the text provided here concerning this law, I find the exemption clause to be very

narrow indeed. In fact, the wording in the document says "...the Departments seek to provide for a

religious accommodation that respects the unique relationship between a house of worship and its

empoyees in ministerial positions...the Departments are amending the interim final rules to provide

HRSA additional discretion to exempt certain religious employers..." First of all, this sounds like only

ministerial positions are truly employee positions, and secondly, that no exemption is guaranteed,

only that HRSA has the discretion to make the decision. I find the wording here to be vague at best

and narrow and discriminatory at worst. Please amend the wording to provide better clarification and

to better reflect the desires of the American people. Many of us work in places that do not qualify as

a "house of worship" and yet we do not want any part of the requirements set forth in this law.

Thank you.
#### Horace Shoemaker, Respondent, v. Charles Lounsbury and another, Appellants.

Judgment affirmed with costs. Opinion by

Follett, J.
**Exhibit
      32.2**











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 filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of South Jersey
      Gas Company (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      David A. Kindlick, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 my knowledge:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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/
      David
      A. Kindlick


-------------------------------------------------------


Name:
      David A. Kindlick


Title:
      Chief Financial Officer


August
      9,
      2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE MARCH
31, 2000 FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          14,173
<SECURITIES>                                 1,115,784
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,397
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,326
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,149,028
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,149,028
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           65,266
<BONDS>                                        996,005
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      87,676
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,149,028
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,256
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,495
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   402
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,856
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,503
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,503
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,503
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.19


</TABLE>
#### STONYBROOK, INC., *v.*CONNECTICUT.

No. 470.

Decided December 3, 1962.

*Francis M. Shea, Lawrence J. Latto, Alfred L. Scanlan*and *Richard T. Conioay*for appellant.

*James J. O’Connell*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.