alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: fifty.oths@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:09:49 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,

Louise Hunt

Montevallo, AL 35115
No. 598, Misc.

#### In re Disbarment of Gately.

It is Ordered that John H. Gately, of Colorado Springs, Colorado, be suspended from the practice of the law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within forty days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of the law in this Court.
#### Maria G. Winne, Respondent, v. The Ulster County Savings Institution, Appellant.

Motion for leave to go to Court of Appeals denied, with ten dollars costs.
From: Lee Nowell

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Please accept IOM"s recommendations

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 10:57:21 AM

Hello.  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.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Lee Nowell

Atlanta, GA
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         1306505
<SECURITIES>                                   2390346
<RECEIVABLES>                                 20065046
<ALLOWANCES>                                    143739
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               7942213
<PP&E>                                        23871618
<DEPRECIATION>                                 5073887
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                49513114
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3684851
<BONDS>                                       32036486
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        354300
<OTHER-SE>                                    10446939
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  49513114
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              12171425
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5676878
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2657262
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1944583
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1944583
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1944583
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.55
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                       New Century Financial Corporation
                Statement Re Computation of Per Share Earnings

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                        Nine Months Ended          Three Months Ended 
                                                          September 30,               September 30,
                                                    -------------------------   -------------------------
                                                       1998          1997          1998          1997
                                                    -----------   -----------   -----------   -----------
<S>                                                 <C>           <C>           <C>           <C> 
Basic:

Net earnings                                        $22,333,000   $14,460,000   $ 8,608,000   $ 7,040,000
                                                    ===========   ===========   ===========   ===========

  Weighted average common shares outstanding         14,151,766     9,544,079    14,176,478    14,121,609
                                                    -----------   -----------   -----------   -----------

Earnings per share                                  $      1.58   $      1.52   $      0.61   $      0.50
                                                    ===========   ===========   ===========   ===========

Diluted:

Net earnings                                        $22,333,000   $14,460,000   $ 8,608,000   $ 7,040,000
                                                    ===========   ===========   ===========   ===========

Weighted average number of common and common
 equivalent shares outstanding:
  Weighted average common shares outstanding         14,151,766     9,544,079    14,176,478    14,121,609
  Dilutive effect of convertible preferred stock,
   stock options and warrants, after application        920,166     2,927,648       866,134     1,257,749
                                                    -----------   -----------   -----------   -----------
                                                     15,071,932    12,471,727    15,042,612    15,379,358
                                                    ===========   ===========   ===========   =========== 
Earnings per share                                  $      1.48   $      1.16   $      0.57   $      0.46
                                                    ===========   ===========   ===========   ===========
</TABLE>
From: julieforsyth@q.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:31:05 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,

Julie Forsyth

Elizabeth, CO 80107
From: Lynda Mull

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 5:18:30 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,

Lynda Mull
philipsburg, Pennsylvania
From: eppeters@frontiernet.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:24:30 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,

Earl E Peters

, 14485-0553
- Cover page
- Title page
- Abstract
- Nomenclature
- Introduction
- Airplane
- HIDEC System
- Engine
- ADECS Mode
Inlet Distortion Data
Maximum deltaEPR
Predicted Performance Improvements
EPR Uptrim Dynamics

- Concluding Remarks
- References
- Figures
- Report Documentation Page
From: kuenzij@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:06:37 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,

Jesse Kuenzi

Belleville, WI 53508
C Page | of 1
fb HOSE CO sep 2 nan

As of: September 02, 2011

Received: August 24, 2011

Status: Posted

PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: September 02, 2011
Tracking No. 80eeaeS5

‘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-2010-0017-0162
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Urknown at Submitter Information

Address:
Spring Valley, 91977-3486
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?objectlId=09000... 9/2/2011
|   | (1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| August 10, 2009 |   | /s/Phillip E. Becker                  |
|-----------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
| Date            |   | Phillip E. Becker                     |
|            |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|            |   |                                  |
|            |   |                                  |
|            |   |                                  |
| August 10, 2009 |   | /s/H. Stewart Fitz Gibbon III         |
| Date            |   | H. Stewart Fitz Gibbon III            |
|            |   | Executive Vice President and          |
|            |   | Chief Financial Officer               |
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ANTONIO DINARDO and COLETTE DINARDO
, Appellant s ,

v.

COMMUNITY LOAN SERVICING, LLC f/k/a

BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING
, LLC
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 2 2

- 1093

[ March 22, 2023 ]

Appeal of a nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Sevent eenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Andrea Gundersen , Judge; L.T. Case

No. CACE19

- 010970.

Peter J. Snyder of Peter J. Snyder, P.A.

, Boca Raton , for appellant s

.

Joseph G. Paggi III of Deluca Law Group, PLLC, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee

.

ON MOTIONS FOR REHEARING AND CERTIFICATION

P ER C URIAM

.

We affirmed the trial court’s order finding personal jurisdiction over appellants where their lawyer agreed to accept service by mail. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(i) does not apply where a defendant’s attorney agrees to accept service. Rather, the rule applies where a party defendant is served by mail, without any participation by an attorney.

We deny the motions for rehearing and certification.

W ARNER
, G ROSS and C IKLIN , JJ., concur.
From: tina362@myfairpoint.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:29:30 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,

Tina Giroux

Williston, VT 05495