alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: fountains07@frontier.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:32:07 PM

Hello:

Please 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,

Susan Smith

Cambridge, OH 43725
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NICHOLAS PATRICK, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

ROSS; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-15505 

D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00720-TLN-CKD 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 15, 2018**

Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Nicholas Patrick, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district 

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional 

violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a 

district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 21 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-15505 

889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Patrick’s sexual harassment claim 

because the alleged conduct by defendants does not constitute cruel and unusual 

punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 

338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a 

plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); see also Wood v. 

Beauclair, 692 F.3d 1041, 1049-50 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth elements of a 

sexual harassment claim in the prison context); Somers v. Thurman, 109 F.3d 614, 

622-23 (9th Cir. 1997) (allegations that female guards “gawked” and pointed at a 

male inmate while he was showering did not rise to the level of cruel and unusual 

punishment); Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[V]erbal 

harassment generally does not violate the Eighth Amendment.”).

The district court properly dismissed Patrick’s retaliation claim because 

Patrick failed to allege facts sufficient to show that the disciplinary action did not 

reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 

F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth elements of a retaliation claim in the 

prison context).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 
3 18-15505 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We do not consider documents not filed with the district court. See United 

States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not 

presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1312 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1312

      Commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Space Foundation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 26, 2008

   Mr. Lamborn (for himself, Ms. Harman, Mr. Reyes, and Mr. Udall of 
Colorado) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                  Committee on Science and Technology

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
      Commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Space Foundation.

Whereas, on March 21, 1983, the United States Space Foundation was founded by a 
        small group of pioneering individuals in Colorado Springs, Colorado;
Whereas 2008 marks the 25th year of excellence and service of the Space 
        Foundation;
Whereas the mission of the Space Foundation is to advance space-related 
        endeavors to inspire, enable, and propel humanity;
Whereas the Space Foundation has become the leading nonprofit organization 
        advancing the exploration, development, and use of space and space 
        education for the benefit of all humankind;
Whereas the Space Foundation embraces all aspects of space including commercial, 
        civil, and national security;
Whereas the current national security environment requires extensive use and 
        advancement of space-based assets;
Whereas the Space Foundation has contributed to space education programs in all 
        50 States and also in Europe and Asia;
Whereas the Space Foundation is regarded internationally as a leading space 
        advocacy organization, and is a member of the United States Delegation 
        to the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space; and
Whereas the Space Foundation hosts the National Space Symposium and Strategic 
        Space and Defense, 2 of the top conferences for space professionals: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes the contributions made by the Space 
        Foundation; and
            (2) commemorates the Space Foundation's 25 years of 
        excellence and support to the Nation.
                                 <all>
```
#### BROOKSHIRE *v.*CONTESTIBLE, ADMINISTRATRIX.

No. 352.

Decided November 5, 1962.

Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.
### SI()-l()()3()')-()2 2

DALLAS/FOR TWORT H INTERNATIONA L AIRPOR T 320 0 EAS TAIRFIEL D DRIVE . P.O . BO X 61942 S

OF W AIRPORT , TEXA S 75261-942 8

www.dfwairport.co m T97 2 97 3 520 0 F 97 2 97 3 575 1 jf»g»n«dfwiirport.co m Februar y26,201 0 '"'"" ' " • ''°*"''"" ' '^''"TM ' °''""' ' Th e Honorabl e Raymon d H . LaHoo d 

### Secretar y U.S . Departmen t o f Transportatio n 120 0 NewJerse

yAve , S E Washington , D

C 2059 0 Docke t DOT-OST-2010-0034 Dea rIVIr . Secretary : Than k yo u fo rth e opportunit yt o expres s m ysupport , a s wel l a s tha t o f th e Dailas/For

t Wort h Internationa l Airport , fo rth e applicatio n fo rantitrus t immunit yan d propose d join t busines s agreemen t file d b yAmerica n Airlines an d Japa n Airlines . Th e propose d allianc e betwee n thes e tw o airline s i s vita l fo rth e oneworl d allianc e t o compet e effectivel ywit h th e Sta ran d SkyTea m alliances . Thi s increase d allianc e competitio n wil l i n tur n enhanc e th e benefit s o f th e Department' s Ope n Skie s policy~ firs t b y solidifyin g U.S . -Japa n Ope n Skies , the n b yservin g a s a foundatio n fo rfurthe rliberalizatio n acros s Asia . Afte ra thoroug h review , I encourag e th e Departmen t o f Transportatio n t o approv e thi s applicatio n a s i t woul d enabl e thes e oneyyprl d .alliance airline s t o wor k closel ytogethe rt o delive rhighl ycompetitiv e ai r transportatio n services . ApprovaJ fo rth e AA/JA L allianc e wil l hav e a positiv e impac t o n ai rtrave l by offerin g customers mor e service , schedulin g an d pricin g option s an d wil l hel p t o ensur e tha t customers continu e t o benefi t fro m th e competitio n afforde d b ythre e competitiv e ai ralliances . I urg e yo u t o quickl yapprov e thi s application . Sincerely , ^leffre yP . Fega n Chief Executive Offic e Dallas/For

t Wort h Internationa l Airpor t P.O . Bo x61942 8 DF W Airport , T

X 7526 1 jfegan@dfwairport.cc m

^»&
#### Edgar Munson and others, Appellants, v. George J. Magee and the Syracuse, Geneva and Corning Railway Company, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs on the opinion of Macomber, J., reported 29 Hun, 76, and the order denying reargument, 29 Hun, 617.
Número Identificador

SEN2024 ______________

ESTADO LIBRE ASOCIADO DE PUERTO RICO

TRIBUNAL DE APELACIONES

PANEL IV

OFICINA DEL 

COMISIONADO DE 

SEGUROS DE PUERTO 

RICO

Querellante-Recurrido

v.

IRMA M. MARTÍNEZ 

COLÓN

Querellada-Recurrente

TRIPLE-S VIDA, INC.

Co-Querellada

KLRA202400120

REVISIÓN

procedente de la

Oficina de 

Comisionado de 

Seguros de Puerto 

Rico

Caso Núm: 

CM-DA-2023-07

Sobre: Violación a 

los Artículos 

27.160(3) y 27.170 

del Código de 

Seguros de Puerto 

Rico, 26 LPRA secs. 

2716(3) y 2719, y a 

la Regla Núm. 93 del 

Reglamento de dicho 

código. 

Panel integrado por su presidenta, la Jueza Cintrón Cintrón, la 

Jueza Rivera Marchand y el Juez Rodríguez Flores.

Cintrón Cintrón, Jueza Ponente.

SENTENCIA

En San Juan, Puerto Rico, a 8 de abril de 2024.

Atendida la Moción Solicitando Desistimiento presentada el 2

de abril de 2024 por la parte recurrente, la señora Irma M. Martínez 

Colón, se declara Ha Lugar. 

Se ordena el cierre y archivo del recurso de epígrafe, de 

conformidad con la Regla 83 (A) del Reglamento del Tribunal de 

Apelaciones, 4 LPRA Ap. XXII-B, R. 83 (A).

Lo acordó y manda el Tribunal y lo certifica la Secretaria.

Lcda. Lilia M. Oquendo Solís

Secretaria del Tribunal de Apelaciones
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6385
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHOKWUEMEKA NWAORISA ANYAEHIE, a/k/a Emeka, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-93-145-L, CA-95-1935-L) Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 20, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chokwuemeka Nwaorisa Anyaehie, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen S. Zimmermann, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his habeas motion, 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Anyaehie , Nos. CR-93-145-L; CA-95-1935-L (D. Md. Feb. 27, 1996). We dispense withoral 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
EXHIBIT 32.1906 CERTIFICATION     The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with this quarterly reportof Callidus Software Inc. on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) for the purpose of complying with Rule13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.     Robert H. Youngjohns, the Chief Executive Officer and Ronald J. Fior, the Chief FinancialOfficer of Callidus Software Inc., each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge: 1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Exchange Act; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of CallidusSoftware Inc.     Date: November 8, 2007                                                /s/ ROBERT H. YOUNGJOHNS   *Robert H. Youngjohns*   *President and Chief Executive Officer*                                              /s/ RONALD J. FIOR   *Ronald J. Fior*   *Chief Financial Officer,*
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         September 14, 2023.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 7, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 7 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2023-264, CP2023-267.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2023-19833 Filed 9-13-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
From: Kirk Ludwig

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: health care reform law & women’s preventive health care

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 9:51:41 AM

I am writing to ask that you accept the recommendations of the Institute

of Medicine on coverage of preventive care under the new health care

law, and also, specifically, to reject exemptions for “religious

employers,” which would undermine the delivery of important preventive

healthcare to women, without their consent. This is clearly

inappropriate, as inappropriate as it would be for your employer to

decided on the basis of his or her ideological commitments what

healthcare you should have access to, though it is available to others.

One may decide for oneself to forgo certain services, but it is not

appropriate for your employer to decide for you.

Sincerely,

Kirk Ludwig
#### Same v. Same.

Order graining reference reversed. No costs.
#### Lake View Brewing Company, Appellant, *v.*The Commerce Insurance Company of Albany, Respondent.

*Lake View Brewing Co.*v. *Commerce Ins. Co.,*143 App. Div. 665, affirmed.

(Argued February 13, 1913;

decided March 4, 1913.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered March 8, 1911, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at an Equity Term in an action to reform a policy of fire insurance.

*Francis E. Bagot*for appellant.

*Vernon Cole*for respondent.

Order affirmed and judgment absolute ordered against appellant on the stipulation, with costs in all courts; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Willard Bartlett, . Chase, Cuddeback and Hogan, JJ. Not voting: Miller, J.
#### Fred. B. Keeney, Appellant, v. Henry A. Swan and others, Respondents.

Judgment affirmed. Opinion by

Haight, J.;

Barker, J., not sitting.
No. 137, Misc.

#### Carter *v.*Beto, Corrections Director, et al.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. Certiorari denied.
From: seriousman64@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:12:46 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,

Jerome Rosenbloom

Brooklyn, NY 11220
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 21
                 LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF WARRANTECH CORPORATION


1.       WARRANTECH CONSUMER PRODUCT SERVICES, INC.
                  a Connecticut corporation

2.       WCPS OF FLORIDA, INC.
                  a Florida corporation

3.       WARRANTECH AUTOMOTIVE, INC.
                  a Connecticut corporation

4.       WARRANTECH AUTOMOTIVE OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
                  a California corporation

5.       WARRANTECH AUTOMOTIVE RISK PURCHASING GROUP, INC.
                  a Michigan corporation

6.       WARRANTECH AUTOMOTIVE OF FLORIDA, INC.
                  a Florida corporation

7.       WARRANTECH DIRECT, INC.
                  a Texas corporation

8.       WARRANTECH (UK) LIMITED
                  a company incorporated in England

9.       WARRANTECH INTERNATIONAL, INC.
                  a Delaware corporation

10.      WCPS OF CANADA, INC.
                  a Connecticut corporation

11.      WARRANTECH AUTOMOTIVE OF CANADA, INC.
                  a Connecticut corporation

12.      WARRANTECH EUROPE PLC
                  a company incorporated in England

13.      WARRANTECH ADDITIVE, INC.
                  a Texas corporation

14.      WARRANTECH HOME SERVICE COMPANY
                  a Connecticut corporation

15.      WARRANTECH CARIBBEAN LTD
                  a company incorporated in the Cayman Islands

16.      WARRANTECH HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY
                  a Florida corporation

17.      WARRANTECH HELP DESK, INC.
                  a Delaware corporation

18.      WCPS DIRECT, INC.
                  a Texas corporation

19.      WHSC DIRECT, INC.
                  a Texas corporation

20.      WARRANTECH HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY
                  a Connecticut corporation

21.      WARRANTECH INTERNATIONAL de CHILE
                  a Chile corporation

22.      VEMECO, INC.
                  a Connecticut corporation


                                       51
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.92




                              SECOND AMENDMENT TO
                          PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT

         AMENDMENT dated as of February 8, 1996, to Purchase and Sale Agreement
dated as of August 30, 1993, as previously amended by an Amendment to Purchase
and Sale Agreement dated as of May 10, 1994 (the "Agreement"), between
PREFERRED EQUITIES CORPORATION  ("Developer"), MARINE MIDLAND BANK ("Marine")
and WELLINGTON FINANCIAL CORP. ("Wellington").  Terms defined in the Agreement
have their defined meanings when used in this Amendment.

         1.  The Recital of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:

                                    Recital

         Developer, Marine and Wellington wish to enter into an agreement under
which Developer will offer to sell to Marine notes (individually, "Note", and
collectively, "Notes"), and mortgages or deeds of trust (individually,
"Mortgage",  and collectively, "Mortgages") securing the Notes evidencing the
sale and financing of  timeshare interests in Reno Spa Resort Club, Reno,
Nevada; Grand Flamingo Resort Club, Las Vegas, Nevada (which includes Grand
Flamingo Towers, Grand Flamingo Villas, Grand Flamingo Terraces, Grand Flamingo
Suites, Grand Flamingo Winnick and Grand Flamingo Fountains); and The Suites at
Steamboat, Steamboat Springs, Colorado ("Project"), and the Marine will
purchase from Developer the Notes and Mortgages of those purchasers of
timeshare interest ("Obligors") who are acceptable to it.

         2.  It is understood that Notes and Mortgages representing the
financing of the sale of timeshare interests in The Suites at Steamboat will be
endorsed and assigned first by Steamboat Suites, Inc. to Developer and then by
Developer to Marine.  All such endorsements and assignments shall be with
recourse.

                                       PREFERRED EQUITIES CORPORATION

                                       By ______________________________________

                                       MARINE MIDLAND BANK

                                       By ______________________________________
                                          Alton H. Lyles, Vice President

                                       WELLINGTON FINANCIAL CORP.

                                       By ______________________________________
                                          Irwin R. LePow, President