alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Victoria Germano

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Access to Preventive Care and Contraception

Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 11:59:58 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.

I share the beleif with the AAUW 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 religiouslyrun 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.

vgermano
From: kerricoles@charter.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:21:44 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,

Kerri Coles

Holland, MI 49424
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          14,415
<SECURITIES>                                    40,743
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,270
<ALLOWANCES>                                       981
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                86,447
<PP&E>                                           7,090
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,329
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  92,208
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           49,630
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            2,640
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           110
<OTHER-SE>                                      39,828
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    92,208
<SALES>                                         41,123
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                41,123
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,426
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,891
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,101
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,705
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,131
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,574
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,574
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.95
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

I, Domenic Gatto, Chief Executive Officer of Atlantic Express Transportation Corp. (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 my knowledge:

(i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ‘‘Report’’), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|  | /s/ Domenic GattoDomenic GattoChief Executive Officer |
|--|-------------------------------------------------------|

Date: May 11, 2007

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7898

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TAMMY WILLIAMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior

District Judge. (CR-92-28)

Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 27, 2002

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tammy Williams, Appellant Pro Se. David Paul Folmar, Jr., Assistant

United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Tammy Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s marginal

order denying her motion to modify her term of imprisonment. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. 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: teresaduke53@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:19:27 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,

Teresa Duke

La Vergne, TN 37086
II

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1369

To provide that Federal employees may retain for personal use promotional

items received as a result of travel taken in the course of employment.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

AUGUST 3, 2001

Mr. WARNER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

A BILL

To provide that Federal employees may retain for personal

use promotional items received as a result of travel taken

in the course of employment.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. RETENTION OF TRAVEL PROMOTIONAL ITEMS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 5702 of title 5, United

5 States Code, is amended—

6 (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as sub7 section (d);

8 (2) in subsection (d) (as redesignated by para9 graph (1)), by striking ‘‘This section does’’ and in10 serting ‘‘Subsections (a) and (b) do’’; and
2

•S 1369 IS

1 (3) by inserting after subsection (b) the fol2 lowing:

3 ‘‘(c) Promotional items (including frequent flyer

4 miles, upgrades, and access to carrier clubs or facilities)

5 an employee receives as a result of using travel or trans6 portation services procured by the United States or ac7 cepted pursuant to section 1353 of title 31 may be re8 tained by the employee for personal use if such pro9 motional items are obtained under the same terms as

10 those offered to the general public and at no additional

11 cost to the Government.’’.

12 (b) REPEAL OF SUPERCEDED LAW.—Section 6008 of

13 the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (5

14 U.S.C. 5702 note; Public Law 103–355) is repealed.

15 (c) APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made by this

16 Act shall apply with respect to promotional items received

17 before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
#### ALBERT DE FREEST *v.*THE CITY OF TROY.

Practice— *Code of Civil Pi'ocedw'e, sec.*191, *suh. 8*— power *to allow an appeal u/nder*— hy *what General Term it must he exercised.*

The power to allow an appeal to be taken to the Court of Appeals, in the cases specified in subdivision 8 of section 191 of the Code of Civil Procedure, can only be exercised by the General Term which rendered the determination sought to be reviewed, or the next General Term held after judgment has been entered thereon. No subsequent General Term can allow such appeal to be taken.

Application for leave to appeal to 'the Court of Appeals.

*W. J.*Boche, for the motion.

*E.*Countryman, opposed.

By the Court :

This was an action to declare an assessment illegal. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff. An appeal was taken and was *581argued at the General Term, November, 1882, and was affirmed at the same term; not (as incorrectly stated in the moving papers) in December, 1882. The judgment of affirmance was entered in December, 1882. The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals. It is now stated to us that when the case was called for argument in the Court of Appeals, in December, 1881, that court suggested that the appeal was not properly taken; that it did not appear that the amount in controversy was more than $500, and that the court below had not allowed the appeal under section 191, subdivision 3; that the Court of Appeals then suggested to defendant’s counsel that he should apply to the General Term for such an allowance. He now makes such an application.

By the section above cited such allowance can be made only at the General Term which rendered the determination, or at the next General Term after judgment is entered. This -application is therefore, on. its face, too late. The defendant’s counsel, however, urges that section 783 permits us to relieve him. But that section only permits the court to relieve a party from his omission to do some act. Here the question is as to the power of the court. Indeed section 781, stating that the court cannot extend the time to appeal, shows by inference that we cannot at this time grant this application. The Court of Appeals might just as properly disregard section 191, subdivision 3, and hear this appeal without any allowance at all, as this court could disregard the same section and grant an allowance at a time when our power has terminated. Indeed it is safer for that court to disregard the statute, because there is no appeal from their action.

Application denied, with ten dollars costs.

Present — Learned, P. J., Bookes and Landon, JJ.

Motion for leave to go to Court of Appeals denied, with ten dollars costs.
#### Myrtle M. Thompson, Appellant, *v.*Gimbel Brothers, Respondent.

*Thompson*v. *Gimbel*Brothers, 145 App. Div. 436, affirmed.

(Argued December 9, 1913;

decided December 31, 1913.)

Appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered June 2, 1911, which affirmed a determination of the Appellate Term affirming a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York in favor of the defendant in an action to recover wages assigned to plaintiff by defendant’s employees to secure payment of- their notes.

*Frederick H. Cunningham*for appellant.

*Walter S. Heilborn*and *David J. Gallert*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion in the case of *Thompson*v. *Erie R. R. Co.*(207 N. Y. 171).

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock, Chase and Collin, JJ.
#### Abraham H. Baraschick, Respondent, *v.*Leo Ritter et al., Appellants.

Reported below, 153 App. Div. 899.

(Submitted March 10, 1913;

decided March 18, 1913.)

Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered November 22, 1912, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for an alleged breach of contract.

The motion was made upon the grounds that the action was one to recover for breach of a contract specified in subdivision 2 of section 191 of the Code of Civil Procedure; that the decision of the Appellate Division was unanimous; that permission to appeal had not been obtained; that no question of law was involved, and that the exceptions were frivolous,

*774
      *Otto A. Samuels*for motion.

*Joseph Gans*opposed.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
Page | of 1

na yr 52o}-J/O

AG 392 son AEG-12099!-/0

LEGAL PROCES®) -GULATIONS
“ATION & RE!

PUBLICATNE ANC

As of: August 30, 2011

Received: August 10, 2011

Status: Posted

PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: August 30, 2011

Tracking No. 80eddSec

(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-2010-0017-0043
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: Angie Kim Tarter
Address:

6131 Barrington Oaks

Cedar Hill, MO, 63016
Email: tarter20f6@sbcglobal.net
Phone: 636-274-3135

General Comment

Please do not let people of faith pay for people to have an abortion. Pregnancy is not a illness it is
a life. This is not preventive medecine this is after the fact. This is not right please reconsider.

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectId=0900... 8/30/2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
consolidated balance sheet and the consolidated  statements of income of Journal
Register  Company for the quarter ended June 30, 1998,  and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                   1,000
       
<S>                            <C>   
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                   JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                              10,620  
<SECURITIES>                             0   
<RECEIVABLES>                       55,978    
<ALLOWANCES>                         5,193 
<INVENTORY>                         10,583   
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    81,339   
<PP&E>                             219,883   
<DEPRECIATION>                     128,076    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     365,397    
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              102,378    
<BONDS>                            496,360
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0   
<COMMON>                               484     
<OTHER-SE>                        (243,557)   
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       365,397  
<SALES>                                  0  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   101,881 
<CGS>                                    0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       56,679 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     5,085     
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       598   
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   8,658   
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     23,222  
<INCOME-TAX>                         8,616  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 14,606  
<DISCONTINUED>                           0   
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0   
<CHANGES>                                0   
<NET-INCOME>                        14,606
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                         0.30
                               








</TABLE>
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 (0.36 MB)
 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: Mary Johnsen

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: In Response to HHS New Mandates

Date: Monday, August 08, 2011 12:10:57 PM

Good Morning,

I am writing in regards to the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

new mandates concerning preventive health services to be covered by insurance

plans. Specifically those that require all insurance plans to provide coverage for all

prescription contraceptives approved by the FDA as well as abortifacients. Few

exceptions exist, such as "religious employers". However, the definition used to

describe a "religious employer" is so narrow that its applicability negates most

religious employers within the United States.

I would like to express my opposition to the narrow-mindedness of the definition of

"religious employer" for the new contraceptive mandates. Considering the United

States was founded on and continues to operate through Christian influence, this

"definition" should be extended to include more legitimate religious employers.

Thank you for your time,

Mary-Kathryn Johnsen

Mandeville, La
From: Sharna Ahern

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Preventive care for women

Date: Friday, August 12, 2011 4:52:28 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.