alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
— Page 1 of 1
‘7 ¢), _
LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION f KG SIA34C-/, C SEP 0 2 2011
PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS

BRANCH As of: September 02, 2011
Received: August 29, 2011
Status: Posted

PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: September 02, 2011

Tracking No. 80f07366
‘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: AmendmentTM

Document: IRS-2010-0017-0173
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Cnkaown 3# Submitter Information

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.

T 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
#### William Sutherland and others, Appellants, v. Cady E. Reed and others, Executors, etc., Respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Corlett, J.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Everett McKinley Dirksen UnitedStatesCourthouse

 Room 2722 - 219 S. Dearborn Street

 Chicago, Illinois 60604

Office of the Clerk

Phone: (312) 435-5850

www.ca7.uscourts.gov

ORDER

June 25, 2014

No.: 13-3825

ERIC C. ONYANGO, 

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

NICK & HOWARD, LLC, et al., 

Defendants - Appellees

 Originating Case Information:

District Court No: 1:13-cv-06256

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman

The following are before the court: 

1. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE

A PETITION FOR REHEARING, filed on June 23, 2014, by Appellant Eric Onyango.

2. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REQUEST TO CORRECT ORDER,

filed on June 23, 2014, by Appellant Eric Onyango.

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for extension of time is GRANTED to the extent that

a petition for rehearing, if any, is due July 10, 2014.
No. 13-3825 Page 2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to correct the order is GRANTED. On

page 2, the seventh line of the second paragraph is amended to delete the words "and

defamatory statements."

form name: c7_Order_3J(form ID: 177)
II

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 100

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the estate and

gift taxes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 22, 2001

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

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal

the estate and gift taxes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Death Tax Termi5 nation Act of 2001’’.

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES.

7 Subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (re8 lating to estate, gift, and generation-skipping taxes) is re-
2

•S 100 IS

1 pealed effective with respect to estates of decedents dying,

2 and gifts made, after December 31, 2000.

Æ
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74

38 39 40 41



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲

▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 07/19 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 19 Jul 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.86 N 77.06 WMeters AGL
file:///C|/..._List_29-08-2011_12-55-54-352/Document%20List%2029-08-2011%2012-55-54-352_docs/EBSA-2010-0018-DRAFT-0051.html[8/29/2011 2:37:39 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: August 29, 2011

Received: August 24, 2011

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 80eeb0e7

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-0051

Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: Tad Lamb Jr

Address:

London, Ohio,

General Comment

I read over the regulations for a religious exemption for providing contraceptive care. As written now,

it would only exempt churches and other institutions whose express purpose is religious in nature.

However, clergy are not the only employers with strong religious convictions on this issue. If I were

an employer I would not be able offer contraceptive services without violating my religious beliefs.

This regulation would impinge not only on the religious freedom of religious institutions, but also on

every employer who believes that providing such contraceptives is immoral. This not just a matter of

cost. Employers might be fine with the monetary value of the services provided, but it would violate

their freedom of religion.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1233 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1233

 To provide penalties for certain unauthorized writing with respect to 
                           consumer products.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 24, 2001

   Mr. Kohl (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Leahy, Mr. DeWine, and Mr. 
    Durbin) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide penalties for certain unauthorized writing with respect to 
                           consumer products.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Product Packaging Protection Act of 
2001''.

SEC. 2. TAMPERING WITH CONSUMER PRODUCTS.

    Section 1365 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections 
        (g) and (h), respectively; and
            (2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following new 
        subsection (f):
    ``(f)(1) Whoever, without the consent of the manufacturer, 
retailer, or authorized distributor, intentionally tampers with a 
consumer product that is sold in interstate or foreign commerce by 
knowingly placing or inserting any writing in the consumer product, or 
the container for the consumer product, before the sale of the consumer 
product to any consumer shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not 
more than three years, or both.
    ``(2) As used in paragraph (1) of this subsection, the term 
`writing' means any form of representation or communication, including 
handbills, notices, or advertising, that contain letters, words, or 
pictorial representations.''.
                                 <all>
```
Sasol Italy S.p.A. 

Via Enrico Mattei 4 

26827 Terranova dei Passerini LO (Italy) 

Tel. : + 39 0377 4631 - Fax : + 39 0377 463 226 

1

Terranova dei Passerini, July 9

th

,2010 

Subject Alfoterras’ Water Solubility determination 

Test method Water extractability testing guidance 100608.doc 

Materials and Methods: 

The solubility tests have been performed on the following products: 

Alfoterra 123-4S, lot 100225 (32.5% active matter), Alfoterra 123-8S, lot 100226 (28.0% active matter), 

Alfoterra 145-4S, lot 070125 (30.1% active matter), Alfoterra 145-8S, lot 100129 (33.2% active matter), 

Alfoterra 167-4S, lot 070130 (30.2% active matter), Alfoterra 167-7S, lot 070131 (30.9% active matter). 

The solubility was evaluated at two different concentrations: 

- 1% w/v of the surfactant as is 

- 1% w/v of the surfactant calculated on the active matter base. 

The exact amount of surfactant was put in a 250 ml beaker, equipped with a magnetic stirring bar, 

containing the calculated volume of demineralized water to obtain 100 ml solution. 

Magnetic stirring was immediately switched on at 600 rpm and contemporaneously the determination of the 

dissolution time was started. 

The test was carried out at 20°C. 

Results: 

Alfoterra Concentration Dissolution time Final aspect 

1% as is < 1 min Clear solution 

123-4S 

1% A.M. < 1 min Clear solution 

1% as is < 1 min Clear solution 

123-8S 

1% A.M. < 1 min Clear solution 

1% as is < 2 min Clear solution 

145-4S 

1% A.M. < 3 min Clear solution 

1% as is < 1 min Clear solution 

145-8S 

1% A.M. < 2 min Clear solution 

1% as is < 2 min Clear solution 

167-4S 

1% A.M. < 3 min Clear solution 

1% as is < 2 min Clear solution 

167-7S 

1% A.M. < 2 min Clear solution 

TCS laboratory manager 

Pierangelo Andena 

TECHNICAL CUSTOMER SUPPORT LABORATORY
CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

POWERNOTES (SM)

With Maturities of 9 months or more from Date of Issue

 

Registration No.  333-59540

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (3)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO.  195				Trade Date: 06/26/02
(To Prospectus Supplement & Prospectus dated

  June 1, 2001)							Issue Date:  07/02/02
The Date of this Pricing Supplement June 26, 2002
SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION OR REPAYMENT

  CUSIP									Date and terms of redemption or

     or	Stated				             Interest			repayment (including any

Common	Interest		  Price to	 Discounts &         Payment	Survivors		applicable regular or special

  Code	Rate (1)	Maturity	Public (2)	Commissions       Frequency	  Option	Yes/No	record dates)

14911QJC6   5.25%	07/15/10	     100%	       1.20%             Semi-Annually	     YES	    NO	

Principal						1st Payment	Day	

Amount		Proceeds		Dealer		      Date		Count

$2,486,000.00	$2,456,168.00	ABN AMRO Inc.	    1/15/03		30/360	
 

Original Issue Discount Note:					Total Amount of OID:

____  Yes	  X   No						N/A

 

 
- The interest rates on the PowerNotes (SM) may be changed by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation from time to time, but any such change will not affect the interest rate on any PowerNotes (SM) offered prior to the effective date of the change.   Prior to the date of this Pricing Supplement, $638.436 mm principal amount of the PowerNotes (SM) were sold at interest rates then in effect.  Subsequent offerings of PowerNotes (SM) will be made under a Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated June 1, 2001.
Additionally, the total principal amount of PowerNotes(SM) offered by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation pursuant to its Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated June 1, 2001 has been increased from $500.0mm to $750.0mm.  $250.0mm principal amount of debt securities registered pursuant to Registration Statement No. 333-59540 originally offered by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation pursuant to its Prospectus Supplement dated June 15, 2001 and related Prospectus dated May 25, 2001 are being offered as PowerNotes(SM) by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation pursuant to its Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated June 1, 2001.
- Expressed as a percentage of aggregate principal amount.  Actual Price to Public may be less, and will be determined by prevailing market prices at the time of purchase as set forth in the confirmation sheet.
Donald R. Jost I J^JL^TIC; 

3910 Willow Ridge E>rive, Holt, MI 48842 ;,';^T\j!Q|,P. 

-1 

Docket Management Facility 

U.S. Dept of Transportation 

Docket No. FAA-2102-0089 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

West Bldg. Grand Floor, Room W-120140 

Washington, D. C. 20590 

This is to lend my support to Sun Country Airline's slot exemption Docket 

No. FAA-2012-0089. 

The daily direct flights between Reagan National and Lansing, Michigan's 

airport are especially efficient and helpful to my extended family who travel 

multiple times annually between Lansing and Washington. We must 

otherwise make arrangements that consume fuel and time and money to use 

airports in Detroit or other Michigan cities. 

Sincerely, 

Donald R. Jost /-.i-^*^^-^ /^^^ ;^ '
[4910-13-P]

I~SYMB()•• O)<CURIQ;SCES O\JT'~G S\"MIIOL 

# ANI"-7
"'TI"LSlSIG 

## C-~
m

# ,/1,41< Federal Aviation Administration DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION


### 14CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2010-0433j Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-117-AD; Amendment 

### I,,~"IJ! ,JOID- l(f'/ i

## I '39--; AD'*-*j ;4;J /VI

- 

### II '-/ RlN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directivesj McDonnell Douglas Corporation Model MD-90-30 Airplane AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting anew airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Model MD-90-30 airplanes. This AD requires inspecting for corrosion ofthe retract cylinder support fitting for the main landing gear (MLG) and the mating bore forthe support fitting inthe MLG trunnion fitting, performing corrective actions ifnecessary, and replacing cadmium-plated retract cylinder support bushings and bearings_ This AD 

# II

IT

ROUTINGS'-'"

I~I'IIA~'IG results fTomreports ofthe retract cylinder support fitting forthe MLG failing during gea extension and subsequently damaging the hydra~1iCsystem. We are issuing this AD to ~m prevent corrosion and damage that could comprlmise the integrity ofthe retract cylinder ~OlJTIl<GS"MI'OL support fitting forthe MLG, which could advers~IYaffect the airplane's safe landing. "'''''~'''' DATES: This AD is effective [INSERT DATE

# [5 DAYS AFTER DATE OF m PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. ",~,,,,,.,,,", The Director ofthe Federal Register ap~roved the incorporation by reference of 

### ,m.,~", certain publication listed inthe AD as of[INSERT DATE 35 DAYS AFTER DATE OF ,n I PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. ~,,,,,·,,oo, ADDRESSES: For service information identified inthis AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, 3855 Lakewood 

## " Boulevard, MC D800-00 19,Long Beach, California 90846-0001; telephooe
,
From: Tanya Cassingham

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women - You Rock!

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 5:59:00 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,

Tanya Cassingham

817 Larry Ln

Decatur, GA 30033
From: Geraldine Mayer

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Monday, August 15, 2011 5:03:04 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,

Geraldine Mayer
Oak Forest, Illinois
From: Helen Ridsdale

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Recommendations on preventive care - access to contraception

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 10:38:01 AM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to

accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of

preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for

“religious employers.” These preventive services are a critical element of the new

law and would provide countless women better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women

access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all

contraceptive services, are pushing the government to make exemptions even larger.

Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to religiously-run

health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be exempt from the

coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all faiths and ideologies.

If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to thousands of women just

because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting

IOM’s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption

provisions.
From: Macdonald, Kevin

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: I Support Access to Preventive Care and Contraception

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 4:29:45 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.

Thank You.
AUITIXN.T-EI 78711

Honorable Don S. Caldwell, Jr. Opinion No. H-1002 District/County Attorney Limestone County Re: Appointment of special Groesbeck, Texas 76642 deputy sheriffs. Dear Mr. Caldwell: You have requested our opinion concerning the authority of a sheriff to appoint or hire handgun carrying special deputies "who are not certified peace officers" to patrol an annual celebration in his county. This office has consistently held that the appointment of deputy sheriffs must be authorized by law. Attorney General Opinions V-1050 (1950);V-699 (1948); O-4338 (1942); O-207 (1939). We are not aware of any statute which would authorize the appointment of such special deputies, except possibly article 6869.1, V.T.C.S., which authorizes the appointment of reserve deputy sheriffs. However, such reserve deputies as well as all other peace officers not specifically excepted must satisfy the requirements of article 4413(29aa), V.T.C.S. Attorney General Opinions H-549 (1975); H-167 (1973); M-1267 (1972); M-1026 (1971); M-767 (1971). Section 2A(a) of this article provides in part:

The Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education shall establish minimum training standards for all reserve law enforcement officers which must be fulfilled before a person appointed as a reserve law enforcement officer may carry a weapon or otherwise act as a peace officer. As you note in **your** request, the Commission has established such standards. Accordingly, in our opinion a sheriff has no authority to appoint special deputy sheriffs in this context unless such deputies satisfy the requirements of article 4413(29aa).

P. 4152

### HonorableDonS.Caldwell,Jr. -page 2 (H-1002)

SUMMARY -_ Deputysheriffsappointed topatrolan annualcelebrationmust satisfythe requirementsof article 4413(29aa)inorder toactas apeaceofficer. xery 

### trulyyours,

AttorneyGeneral ofTexas

OpinionCommittee

p. 4153
II

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1023

To modify the land conveyance authority with respect to the Naval Computer

and Telecommunications Station, Cutler, Maine.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 12, 2001

Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. COLLINS) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To modify the land conveyance authority with respect to

the Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station,

Cutler, Maine.

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

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITY FOR CONVEY4 ANCE OF NAVAL COMPUTER AND TELE5 COMMUNICATIONS STATION, CUTLER, MAINE.

6 Section 2853(a) of the Military Construction Author7 ization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (division B of the Floyd

8 D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

9 Year 2001 (as enacted by Public Law 106–398); 114 Stat.
2

•S 1023 IS

1 1654A–430) is amended by inserting ‘‘any or’’ before ‘‘all

2 right’’.

Æ