alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Marguerite Leonard

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 11:03:19 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,

Marguerite Leonard

6220 Wiles Road, #204

Coral Springs, FL 33067
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Michael Rashad Craig v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-14-00420-CR

Trial court case number: 1333045

Trial court: 337th District Court of Harris County

The time for filing the State’s brief has passed. On October 10, 2014, a late brief notice 

was issued providing the State with 10 days to file a brief along with a request for extension of 

time. No brief or request for extension of time has been received. The Court will proceed to 

disposition of this appeal with or without the appellee’s brief if no brief is filed within 10 

days of the date of this order, accompanied by a request for extension. If the State does not 

intend to file a brief, it should inform the Court within 10 days of the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: __/s/ Harvey Brown

X Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: November 6, 2014
# U.S. and Partner Aircrews Conduct Presence Patrol

/ Published Nov. 11, 2021
AL UDEID AIR BASE, Qatar , 
Two U.S. Air Force B-1B Lancers flew a presence patrol mission in the Central Region that included several coalition and partner nation air forces today.

The bomber task force mission – the sixth in U.S. Central Command’s area of responsibility this year – represented the U.S. led coalition’s commitment to promoting regional stability through partnership.

“Today’s presence patrol mission was an impressive demonstration of our combined power projection capabilities,” said Lt. Gen. Greg Guillot, Ninth Air Force (Air Forces Central) commander. “Simply put, each of our air forces is strong, and we are even stronger together.”

Israel and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia joined the patrol over their respective airspaces, while U.S. fighter jets provided escort. The two-hour presence patrol flew into the CENTCOM AOR over the Red Sea and conducted rejoins with partner nations along the flight path before departing the region.

CENTCOM has coordinated five similar patrols – three in January, one in March and one in October – since the beginning of the year.
file:///C|/..._List_29-08-2011_12-55-54-352/Document%20List%2029-08-2011%2012-55-54-352_docs/EBSA-2010-0018-DRAFT-0032.html[8/29/2011 1:19:00 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: August 29, 2011

Received: August 10, 2011

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 80edd5f9

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-0032

Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: James Walterbach

Address:

7907 NW Eastside

Parkville, Missouri, 64152-1663

Email: walterbachs@gmail.com

General Comment

Please don't force me to pay for abortion-inducing drugs with my healthcare premiums;

The HHS mandate will undermine Missouri law which allows people of faith to opt out of abortioninducing emergency contraception and birth control coverage;

Catholic institutions should not be forced to provide emergency contraception that can cause abortion

and birth control, because use of these drugs violates Church teaching;

Pregnancy is not a disease; Abortion is an elective surgery.

Preserve the rights of conscience and religious liberty for people of faith.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 8 

Ref: 8P-AR 

1595 Wynkoop Street 

DENVER, CO 80202-1129 

Phone 800-227-8917 

http:/IWW'N.epa.gov/region08 

NOV 2 7 2012 

The Honorable Jimmy R. Newton Jr., Chairman 

The Southern Ute Indian Tribe 

P.O. Box 737 

Ignacio, Colorado 81137-0737 

Dear Chairman Newton: 

Re: Clean Air Act (CAA) Ill and 112, New 

Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous 

Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Program 

Approval 

[ am pleased to inform you that, because the Southern Ute Indian Tribe has an approved CAA 

Title V permitting program. the EPA finds that the Tribe has the authority to carry out NSPS 

(CAA lll) and NESHAP (CAA 112) regulatory activities. and that the Tribe can begin 

requesting delegation of specific NSPS & NESHAP standards. The Tribe's treatment '·in the 

same manner as a state" document has been updated to reflect this new Program approval (per 

CAA section 301 (d)(2) and 40 CFR § 49.6.) 

NSPS establishes maximum emission levels for new stationary sources, and NESHAPs address 

the control of hazardous air pollutants through Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

(MACT) standards and related programs that enhance and support the NESHAP program. 

The Tribe is also granted automatic delegation ofNESHAP (CAA 112) standards through 

incorporation by reference of the standards when they are adopted unchanged into the 

Reservation Air Code (RAC) from the federal standards. A request for delegation of specific 

NSPS (CAA 111) standards will require a letter to the EPA. After such request the EPA would 

publish a Federal Register notice containing the letter of request and an updated Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) table, and the EPA would respond by letter to the Tribe. 

To approve future requests for delegation ofNSPS and NESHAPS regulations the EPA will 

provide public notice through publication in the Federal Register as a direct final rule. A direct 

final rule makes CAA Ill and CAA 112 delegations effective the day of publication. However, 

should the EPA receive any adverse comments on the direct final rule, the delegation will be 

reconsidered. 
For more information on this approval, please contact Carl Daly, Director of Region 8's Air 

Program at (303) 312-6416. 

Sincerely, 

LUo~crh I

~ 

L James 

Regional 

B. Martin 

Administrator 

~ -

cc: Thomas Johnson, Environmental Coordinator, Southern Ute Indian Tribe 

Brenda Jarrell, Air Program Manager, Southern Ute Indian Tribe 

Martha Rudolph, CDPHE 

Mike Silverstein, CDPHE
#### JAMIESON *v.*CHICAGO TITLE & TRUST CO. et al.

No. 545.

Decided January 7, 1963.

*Charles W. Jamieson,*appellant, *pro se.*

*Daniel S. Wentworth*for appellees.

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.
PELL cof 5 OGY, 9 Page 1 of 1
LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION hee / KO97. CO

s
PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS EP 02 201f
BRANCH As of: September 02, 2011
Received: August 21, 2011
Status: Posted

PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: September 02, 2011

Tracking No. 80ee80b1
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-2010-0017-0156
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

f 1g
heoan Submitter Information

Address:
Wilmington, 19808-3719
Submitter's Representative: NARAL Pro-Choice America

General Comment

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

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

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

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

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

http://fdms,erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectlId=09000... 9/2/2011
PEG S203 U(- JO Page | of 1

SEP 0 M1
LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION 220"
PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS eas
ai Received: August 23, 2011

; Status: Posted
PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: September 02, 2011
Tracking No. 80¢eea99a
‘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-2010-0017-0166
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Unknown 28 Submitter Information

Address: 95736-0348
Submitter's Representative: NARAL Pro-Choice America

General Comment

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

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

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

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

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

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectId=09000... 9/2/2011
Cheshire, )

March 5, 1912.

#### Sullivan County Railroad *v.*Keefe *& a.*

Where the description of land taken for a railroad right of way, as contained in the original location, is too indefinite to be the foundation of condemnation proceedings, the validity of the lay-out is to be determined by the conduct of the several landowners in accepting the damages awarded them.

Bill in Equity, to delimit a portion of the plaintiffs’ right of way. The plaintiffs contend that Some of the defendants are occupying and that others claim the right to occupy parts of their right of way which they acquired by the exercise of eminent domain. The plaintiffs’ original location was similar to that of the Concord & Claremont Railroad, which is set forth in *Northern R.R.*v< *Railroad,*27 N. H. 183. The questions of law arising upon the defendants’ demurrers were transferred without ruling from the April term, 1911, of the superior court by *Pike,*J.

*John E. Allen, Alhin & Sawyer,*and *Edgar W. Smith,*for the plaintiffs.

*Davis' & Davis*and *Thomas E. O’Brien*(both of Vermont), and *Joseph Madden, Remick & Hollis,*and *Taggart, Tuttle, Burroughs & Wyman,*for the defendants.

Young, J.

The plaintiffs say they should be permitted to maintain this proceeding because locating the line described in the com*369missioners’ report will be determinative of the rights of all the parties in respect of the land in dispute. An examination of the bill shows that the description of the land to be taken, as contained in the original location, was too indefinite to be the foundation of condemnation proceedings *(Dolbeer*v. *Company,*72 N. H. 562; *Littleton*v. *Company,*73 N. H. 11), and that the attempted lay-out was defective. *Northern R.R.*v. *Railroad,*27 N. H. 183. Although the lay-out was defective, no one of the defendants except the town of Walpole is in a position to deny that the plaintiffs have a valid location, for their several grantors (the then owners of the land) accepted the damages the commissioners awarded. But as the location depends for its validity on the conduct of the defendants’ several grantors, and not on the report of the commipsioners, the test to determine whether any one of the different tracts of land in dispute is within the plaintiff’s location is to inquire what the one from whom they attempted to take it understood in respect to the matter, and not what the commissioners’ report shows. In short, notwithstanding the line described in the report is relevant to the rights of the parties in respect to any of the different tracts, it is not determinative of them. That issue as to each of the different tracts must be determined on its own facts.

*Case discharged.*

All concurred.
From: Joseph Perrone

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Thursday, August 04, 2011 3:16:33 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,

Joseph Perrone
Lawrence, Massachusetts
REC - 120 S91-/0

LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION

Page | of 1

AT val a ~ AUG 37 As of: August 31, 2011
PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS G31 200 Received: August 09, 2011

BRANCH Status: Posted
PUBLIC SUBMISSION __ Pevted: sugus31, 2011
Tracking No. 80edc3bf
(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-2010-0017-0044
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

UnXnowa L Submitter Information

General Comment

It is wrong for the US government to force any employer to pay for contraceptive measures for its
employees. Further, it is an egregious idea that any religious employers or any employer of an
organization that maintains a right-to-life/pro-life worldview should be forced to fund something
that goes against there deeply held beliefs. Please ensure that their are protections for these groups
in place. Thank you.

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectld=0900... 8/31/2011
From: Debbie Trujillo

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: religious employers

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:57:06 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.

 D. Trujillo
#### SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. *v.*PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF CALIFORNIA.

No. 445.

Decided January *7,*1963.

*Harry W. Sturges, Jr.. Oscar A. Trippet*and *Thomas H. Carver*for appellant.

*William M. Bennett*for appellee.

*Herman F. Selvin*and *Joseph R. Rensch*for Southern California Gas Co. et al.

Per Curiam.

The motion of Southern California Gas Company and Southern Counties Gas Company of California to correct title and caption is granted.

The motions to dismiss are granted and the appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.
From: susan updegrove

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Preventive health care for women

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 11:46:48 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. For many women it

would be unreasonable and impossible to find other employment just to get 

complete health care coverage.

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.

Thanks for you attention.
#### BENDIX CORPORATION *v.*RADIO POSITION FINDING CORP.

No. 645.

Decided January 21, 1963.

*Edward S. Irons*and *Harold J. Birch*for appellant.

*William D. Hall*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
07/04 RULE 5 Rule 5. Effective Date (Adopted 5/23/72, Revised 4/13/04) All Rules are effective for all equipment as of the effective date of their adoption, unless indicated otherwise. When an effective date is otherwise indicated, existing equipment shall be subject to the previous Rule until the newly adopted Rule becomes effective. "Existing equipment" means all equipment that is in use or is under construction on the date of rule adoption.
From: llfountaine@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:03:07 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,

Linda Fountaine

Rienzi, MS 38865