alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: lee.hughey@gtri.gatech.edu

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:08:42 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,

Lee Hughey

Grayson, GA 30017
From: malliecreech@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:37:49 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,

mb bayne

Snellville, GA 30078
From: helenm39@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:44:51 AM

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,

Helen Moulton

Tucson, AZ 85718
```

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 177 (Thursday, September 14, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 63018]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19869]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2023-0487]

Special Local Regulation; Marine Events Within the Eleventh Coast 
Guard District--Swim for Special Operations Forces

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notification of enforcement of regulation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation on 
the waters of San Diego Bay, CA, during the Swim for Special Operations 
Forces on September 16, 2023. This special local regulation is 
necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew, sponsor 
vessels of the event, and general users of the waterway. During the 
enforcement period, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering 
into, transiting through, or anchoring within this regulated area 
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated 
representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 100.1101 for the location described in 
Item 16 in table 1 to Sec.  100.1101, will be enforced from 7:30 a.m. 
until Noon on September 16, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this 
notification of enforcement, call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade 
Shelley Turner, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San 
Diego, CA; telephone (619) 278-7656, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the special 
local regulations in 33 CFR 100.1101 for the location identified in 
Item No. 16 in table 1 to Sec.  100.1101, from 7:30 a.m. until Noon on 
September 16, 2023, for the Swim for Special Operations Forces in San 
Diego Bay, CA. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of 
life on the navigable waterways during the event. Our regulation for 
recurring marine events in the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone, 
Sec.  100.1101, Item No. 16 in table 1 to Sec.  100.1101, specifies the 
location of the regulated area for the Swim for Special Operations 
Forces, which encompasses portions of San Diego Bay. Under the 
provisions of Sec.  100.1101, persons and vessels are prohibited from 
entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this regulated 
area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated 
representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, 
State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.
    In addition to this document in the Federal Register, the Coast 
Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of 
this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine 
information broadcasts.

    Dated: September 8, 2023.
J.W. Spitler,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2023-19869 Filed 9-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
```
From: Jerome Roth

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: women"s preventative health

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 7:21:29 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                            3283
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       7393
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             251
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               253
<LOANS>                                          58240
<ALLOWANCE>                                        646
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   71722
<DEPOSITS>                                       56554
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                970
<LONG-TERM>                                       6900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                        7294
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                   71722
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   3538
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  223
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    54
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  3815
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                1690
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1927
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             1888
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      126
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   1761
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    803
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         803
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       491
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.20
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.34
<LOANS-NON>                                        180
<LOANS-PAST>                                       157
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   620
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      111
<RECOVERIES>                                        11
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  646
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            646


</TABLE>
From: Gene Kuechmann

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: IOM recommendations

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 7:17:08 PM

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

to adopt the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine regarding coverage

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

for “religious employers.” These preventive services could provide large

numbers of women better access to necessary health care.

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

to contraceptive services. However there are those, driven by an ideological bias

against contraception in general, who are pushing the government to expand

these exemptions. Some groups even want the exemption to apply to

religiously-run health providers; hospitals and clinics 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.

G.S. Kuechmann
October 31, 1962.

No. 459, Misc.

#### Cooper *v.*Alabama.

Movant *pro se.*

*MacDonald Gallion,*Attorney General of Alabama, and *David W. Clark,*Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus dismissed pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-3000

___________________________ Deverick Scott lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v. James Gibson, Warden, Varner Unit (Originally named as Gibson); Virginia Allen, Mailroom Supervisor, Varner Supermax Unit (originally named as Allen); Trent Smith, Officer, Varner Supermax Unit; John Pollett, Chaplain, Varner Supermax Unit (originally named as Polate); Seam Treas, Chaplain, Varner Supermax Unit (originally named as Trease); Dexter McDonnell, Chaplain, Varner Supermax Unit (originally named as McDonnell); Does, Publication Review Committee Members, Varner Unit; Briana Boatner, (originally named as Boatner and Bolden) lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff

____________ Submitted: March 10, 2021 Filed: March 15, 2021 [Unpublished]

____________ Before GRUENDER, WOLLMAN, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM.Arkansas inmate Deverick Scott appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of

summary judgment in his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Initially, we find that Scott’s claims arising from the denial of religious texts were subject to dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See King v. Iowa Dep’t of Corr., 598 F.3d 1051, 1052 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing de novo dismissal for failure to exhaust); Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003) (dismissal is mandatory if exhaustion is not complete at time of filing); see also Townsend v. Murphy, 898 F.3d 780, 784 (8th Cir. 2018) (boundaries of proper exhaustion are determined by prison’s specified administrative requirements). Viewing the record in a light most favorable to Scott, and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, see Brewington v. Keener, 902 F.3d 796, 800 (8th Cir. 2018) (de novo review), we agree with the district court that the record did not establish that the practice of Scott’s religion was substantially burdened under RLUIPA or the First Amendment by the one-time denial of a Ramadan meal or by the subsequent one-time denial of an Eid feast meal. The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1 The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Joe J. Volpe, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkanas. -2-
#            

# CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

POWERNOTES (R)

With Maturities of 9 months or more from Date of Issue

Registration No.  333-109182

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (3)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO.  457                                                                   Trade Date:  07/19/04

(To Prospectus Supplement dated November 6, 2003 &

  Prospectus dated October 15,2003)                                                              Issue Date:   07/22/04

The Date of this Pricing SupplementJuly 19, 2004

SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION OR REPAYMENT

 CUSIP                                                                                                                                   Date and terms of redemption or

     or       Stated                                                                   Interest                                       repayment (includingany

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

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

14911QVA6   4.25%        07/15/10           100%              1.0%              Semi-Annually                 YES         NO                                                                                                                                                                

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

Principal                                                                                 1st Payment             Day         

Amount                  Proceeds                  Dealer                           Date                   Count

$3,796,000.00         $3,758,040.00         ABN AMRO Inc.        01/15/05                               30/360    

Original Issue DiscountNote:                                                                          Total Amount of OID:

____  Yes                X   No                                                                                  N/A

The interest rates on the PowerNotes (R) 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 (R) offered prior to the effective date of the change.  Prior to the date of this Pricing Supplement, $113.796 mm principal amount of the PowerNotes (R) were sold at interest rates then in effect.  Subsequent offerings of PowerNotes (R) will be made under the Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated October 15,2003.

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.
# 

# CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

POWERNOTES (SM)

With Maturities of 9 months or more from Date of Issue

Registration No.  333-97047

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (3)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO.  324                                                               Trade Date: 8/18/03

(To Prospectus Supplement dated August 15, 2002 &

  Prospectus dated August  8, 2002)                                                                                     Issue Date:  8/21/03

The Date of this Pricing SupplementAugust  18, 2003

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)

14911QPM7   3.05%                        08/15/07          100%                     0.9%                  Monthly            YES            NO                

                          

Principal                                                                                1st Payment Day         

Amount                   Proceeds                 Dealer                            Date                  Count

$1,457,000.00                $1,443,887.00         ABN AMROInc.                 09/15/03                 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, $232.404 mm principal amount of the PowerNotes (SM) were sold at interest rates then in effect.  Subsequent offerings of PowerNotes (SM) will be made under the Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated August 8,2002.

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.
#### BARDY *v.*UNITED STATES et al.

No. 603.

Decided January 21, 1963.

*Morton R. Galane*for appellant.

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Loevinger, Robert B. Hummel*and *Irwin A. Seibel*for the United States, and *Albert C. Bickford*for MCA Inc., appellees.

Per Curiam.

The motions to dismiss are granted and the appeal is dismissed.