alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Lucille Frett

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 5:46:45 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,

Lucille Frett
Tinley Park, Illinois
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M AR C O M AGALLON-PINEDA,

Pe t i tione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-72716 Age n c y No. A074-578-479 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Oc tobe r 25, 2016 * * B e fore : LEAVY, SILVER M AN, a n d GR AB ER , C i rc uit Judge s. M arc o M a ga l lon-Pine da , a native an d c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of the B o ard of Im

m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s orde r de ny ing his motion to re ope n re m o va l proc e e dings. W e have jurisdic tion under 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for a buse of disc re tion the 

# FIL ED N OV 03 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).de nia l of a

m otion to re ope n. Mohamme d v . Gonzale s , 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th C ir. 2005). W e de ny

the pe tition for re vie w. The a ge n c y

did not a b u se its disc re tion in deny ing M a ga llon-Pine da ’ s m otion to re o pe n b a se d on ine ffe c tive a s sista nc e of c ounse l , whe re M a ga l lonPine da fa ile d to e sta

blish pre judic e re sulting from

his prior a

ttorne y ’ s a lle ge d ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e . Se eid. at 793 (to pre va il on a n ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l c la im , a pe t itione r m ust de m onstra

te that he wa s pre

judic e d by

c ounse l’ s pe rform a nc e ). In light of this disposition, we do not a d dre ss M a ga llon-Pine d a ’ s re m a ining c onte ntions. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 4 - 7 2 7 1 6 2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack,

 Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 

January 22, 2020

Order 

Clerk

January 22, 2020

160029(102)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 160029

v COA: 339556

Macomb CC: 2016-000578-FC

KYLE JONES,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_______________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the fourth motion of defendant-appellant to extend 

the time for filing an amended application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The amended 

application will be accepted for filing if submitted on or before January 27, 2020. No 

further extensions will be granted.
From: wandabatz@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:24:16 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,

Wanda Batz

Arab, AL 35016
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION * OF MARYLAND

Petitioner IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc. Docket AG No. 88 V 

### . September Tenn, 2015 JOSEPH D. REID II

Respondent. ORDER This matter came before the Court on the Joint Petition of the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland and Respondent, Joseph D. Reid, II, to indefmitely suspend the Respondent from the practice of law with Respondent having the right to apply for readmission after one year. The Court having considered the Petition, it is this 30th day o

March ,2016. ORDERED, that Respondent, Joseph D. Reid II, be and he is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the State of Maryland for violating Rules 1.1, 1.3 and 8.4(a), (c) and (d) of the Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct; and it is further ORDERED, that, the Clerk of this Court shall remove the name of Joseph D. Reid II from the register of attorneys in the Court and certify that fact to the Client Protection Fund of the Bar of Maryland and all Clerks of all judicial tribunals in this State in accordance with Maryland Rule 16-772(d); and it is further ORDERED, that the Respondent may apply for readmission after a period of one year.

/s/ Lynne A. Battaglia Senior Judge
From: Kassidy Salters

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: I Support Access to Preventive Care and Contraception!

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 7:39:47 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.

Sincerely,

Kassidy Salters
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 11.1


                                       NET B@NK, INC.

                        Schedule Regarding Computation of Per Share Loss


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                         For the period
                                      For the Three      February 20, 1996            For the Three     For the Six
                                      Months Ended      (Date of Incorporation)       Months Ended      Months Ended
ACTUAL                                June 30, 1996       to June 30, 1996            June 30, 1997     June 30, 1997
------                                -------------      ---------------------        -------------     -------------
<S>                                   <C>               <C>                           <C>               <C>
Net loss                                $  (36,031)        $     (11,298)              $ (1,420,105)     $(3,220,130)
                                        ----------         -------------               ------------      -----------
                                        ----------         -------------               ------------      -----------

Shares issued and outstanding            1,279,156             1,279,156                  1,279,156        1,279,156
Incremental shares applicable to      
  common stock subscriptions             1,325,000             1,325,000                  1,325,000        1,325,000

Incremental shares applicable to
  stock options                            139,951               139,951                    139,951          139,951
                                        ----------         -------------               ------------      -----------


Weighted average common and
common equivalent shares
outstanding                              2,744,107             2,744,107                  2,744,107        2,744,107
                                        ----------         -------------               ------------      -----------
                                        ----------         -------------               ------------      -----------


Net income (loss) per common
and common equivalent share                  $(.01)                  $--                      $(.52)          $(1.17)
                                        ----------         -------------               ------------      -----------
                                        ----------         -------------               ------------      -----------

</TABLE>
No. 484.

#### Gallo *v.*New York.

*David F. Price*for petitioner.

*Edward S. Silver*and *Aaron E. Koota*for respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York. Certiorari denied.
https://fdms.erulemaking.net/...eb-agency/Download?operation=CoverPage&ObjectId=0900006480b3d05c&Comment=true[8/30/2010 11:45:21 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: August 30, 2010

Received: August 27, 2010

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 80b3d05c

Comments Due: August 27, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0016

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Preexisting Condition Exclusions, Lifetime and Annual

Limits, Rescissions, and Patient Protections

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0016-0001

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Preexisting Condition Exclusions, Lifetime and Annual

Limits, Rescissions, and Patient Protections

Document: EBSA-2010-0016-DRAFT-0022

Comment on FR Doc # N/A

Submitter Information

Name: Allison Shuren

Address:

Washington, DC,

Organization: National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners

General Comment

See attached file(s)

Attachments

EBSA-2010-0016-DRAFT-0022.1: Comment on FR Doc # N/A
From:                                         Beaulieu, Chip

Sent:                                           Friday, August 27, 2010 3:54 PM

To:                                               Shuren, Allison

Subject:                                     NAPNAP comment letter

Attachments:                          NAPNAP comment letter.pdf

  

Page 1 of 1

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/ContentViewer?objectId=0900006480b3d... 8/30/2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q FOR
THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           6,578
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   49,423
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,550
<INVENTORY>                                      7,073
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                66,879
<PP&E>                                         206,191
<DEPRECIATION>                                 117,693
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 302,351
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           90,388
<BONDS>                                        512,994
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           484
<OTHER-SE>                                   (291,239)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 (290,755)
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               175,691
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  127,476
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,901
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,570
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,626
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,576)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,033)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,543)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,543)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)<F1>
<FN>
<F1>Total costs and expenses applicable to sales and revenues include a 31,899
special charge comprised of 28,443 for a management bonus (consisting
primarily of Company common stock) and 3,456 for the discontinuance of a
management incentive plan.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
No. 270.

#### Bank of America National Trust & Savings Association *v.*United States.

*George H. Roster*for petitioner. *Solicitor General Cox*for the United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
From: Amy Lippert

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Please accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine in re: coverage of preventive care under the

new health care law

Date: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 12:38:35 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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.

Sincerely,

Amy Lippert

Amy Katherine D. Lippert

Assistant Professor of American History

The University of Chicago

________________________________________
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (1.89 MB)
 
 Grand Slam Wing 379TH AEW AUAB al Udeid Air Base 379th Air Expeditionairy Wing afcent band AFCENT Centcom Qatar
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
From: barbarapreston@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:08:24 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to CONTINUE to mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be

covered by private health insurance with no co-pay to patients.

I strongly support provisions to bring free insurance coverage to Americans especially for drugs and

devices that will have positive long term effects..

Americans should be able to protect their health and get medical attention and the current insurance

system is definitely not working. THank you for standing strong in these matters!!!

Sincerely,

Barbara Preston

Sincerely,

Barbara Preston

Imperial Beach, CA 91932
October 27, 2015

Mr. Timothy Dykstra

165 Grandview Avenue

Holland, MI 49423

Dear Mr. Dykstra:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

requirements of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot

process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We received your exemption requests filed in Docket No. FAA−2015−3248, but we are 

unable to process your request any further. Your petition does not comply with the 

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must 

send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and the extent of 

the relief you seek.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.
2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosures
3
4