alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
February 16,2012 .^ ^,. ^ ^ ^ , 

OEPARi,V;EiMTCf 

;;AMSPO!iWiON 

• :CKET OPERATIONS 

Docket Management Facility .,,. „ , _ _ . , 

U.S. Dept. of Transportation ^^'^ '^-'^ ? ' P 2-- 0 1 

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE 

West Building Grand Floor, Room W-120140 

Washington, DC 20590 

To Whom It May Concern: 

This letter is in response to the appeal by Sun Country Airlines' appeal for a slot at 

-Reagan National Airport based on the exemption Docket No. FAAr2012-0089. It is very^ 

important for the Greater Lansing's economic development to retain Sun Country 

Airline's direct service from Lansing's Capitol Region International Airport to Ronald 

Reagan National Airport in Washington, D.C. Lansing is not only our state's capitol but 

also home of one of the largest Universities in the country, Michigan State University, 

and many businesses with ties to the nation's capitol. 

Sun Country has run a very successful and safe airline over the last 10 months, carrying 

over 48,000 passengers. 1, as a concerned citizen, have already flown this route several 

times and have been very pleased with the airline and it's services. It was the DOT that 

made the mistake of transferring this slot and Sun Country Airlines is not at fault. 

Please authorize a new slot to Sun Country Airlines to continue flying from Lansing to 

Washington, D.C. 

Sincerely, 

Patricia Voss
II

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1306

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to transfer all excise taxes

imposed on alcohol fuels to the Highway Trust Fund, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

AUGUST 2, 2001

Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. LOTT, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. WARNER, Mrs. LINCOLN, Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire, Mr. REID, Mr.

VOINOVICH, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. BURNS, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. BOND, Mr.

DEWINE, Mr. GRAMM, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Ms.

LANDRIEU, and Mr. ENZI) 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 transfer

all excise taxes imposed on alcohol fuels to the Highway

Trust Fund, and for other purposes.

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 ‘‘Highway Trust Fund

5 Recovery Act of 2001’’.
2

•S 1306 IS

1 SEC. 2. ALL ALCOHOL FUELS TAXES TRANSFERRED TO

2 HIGHWAY TRUST FUND.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 9503(b)(4) of the Internal

4 Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to certain taxes not trans5 ferred to Highway Trust Fund) is amended—

6 (1) by adding ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph

7 (C),

8 (2) by striking the comma at the end of sub9 paragraph (D)(iii) and inserting a period, and

10 (3) by striking subparagraphs (E) and (F).

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

12 this section shall apply to taxes received in the Treasury

13 after September 30, 2003.

Æ
From: efstewart@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:35:18 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,

Ed Stewart

Running Springs, CA 92382
IV 

House Calendar No. 240 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1285 

[Report No. 110–721] 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6304) to amend the Foreign 

Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 19, 2008 

Mr. ARCURI, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; 

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6304) to amend 

the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions 

of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution 

2 it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

3 6304) to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 

4 of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain 

5 acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes. 

6 All points of order against consideration of the bill are 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1285 RH 

1 waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 

2 XXI. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of 

3 order against provisions of the bill are waived. The pre4 vious question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 

5 to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 

6 hour of debate equally divided among and controlled by 

7 the chairman and ranking minority member of the Com8 mittee on the Judiciary and the chairman and ranking mi9 nority member of the Permanent Select Committee on In10 telligence; and (2) one motion to recommit. 

11 SEC. 2. During consideration of H.R. 6304 pursuant 

12 to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the 

13 previous question, the Chair may postpone further consid14 eration of the bill to such time as may be designated by 

15 the Speaker. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 240 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1285 

[Report No. 110

–721] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6304) 

and for other purposes. izing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorto amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 

JUNE 19, 2008 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
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 (5.47 MB)
 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
No. 385, Misc.

#### Hicks *v.*Flemming, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Solicitor General Cox, Acting Assistant Attorney General Guilfoyle*and *Morton Hollander*for respondent.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
From: Amanda Duke

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Preventative care and birth control

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 11:23:09 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.
#### Richard Gallagher, Appellant, *v.*Walsh Construction Company, Respondent.

Gallagher v. *Walsh Construction Co.,*145 App. Div. 943, affirmed.

(Argued January 17, 1913;

decided February 4, 1913.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered July 25, 1911, affirming a judgment in favor of *707defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of defendant.

*William L. Rumsey*and *Henry H. Wells*for appellant.

*Frederick W. Catlin*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock, Chase, Collin and Hogan, JJ.
#### George D. Lord and others, Respondents, v. Spencer D. Richardson and others, Appellants.

— Order modified so as to permit the defendants to make the new motion upon fresh proof to vacate the attachment, and as modified affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by

Follett, J.
From: Terry & Louise Springer

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Mandated contraceptive insurance coverage?

Date: Monday, August 08, 2011 1:47:24 PM

I am very concerned about losing our foundational rights to practice the Catholic faith.

We are not just guaranteed a "freedom to worship" as President Obama has begun

calling it...our constitution protects our conscientious objection and refusal to

participate in immoral actions such as unjust war, abortion, and birth control.

Pregnancy is not a disease; it is the natural result of a lifestyle choice. An unborn

baby is not a physical threat to it's mother; although it is perhaps a threat to her

lifestyle.

Please allow Catholics and those of other faiths to whom contraception, abortion,

same-sex "marriage," etc., are immoral to opt out of participating in providing (either

directly or by contributing to their purchase) these so-called services.

Thank you,

Louise Springer

237 Ninth Street

Menasha, WI 54952
#### Edward Garrett, respondent, v. The City of Buffalo, Appellant.

Order reversed, and new trial granted in the Erie County Court, costs to abide event. Opinion by Smith, P. J.
To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:58:35 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,

Dean and Dorothy Lokken

Morton, WA 98356
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

 

:

ANTOLIN ANDREW MARKS, :

:

Plaintiff, :

v. : Civil Action No. 07-1026 (EGS)

:

GERALD THOMPSON, et al., :

:

Defendants. :

 :

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On January 7, 2011, the Court issued an order to show cause why this action should not

be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Because plaintiff has not filed a response by the January

31, 2011 deadline, the Court will dismiss this action for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 41(b).

An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Signed: EMMET G. SULLIVAN

United States District Judge

Dated: February 10, 2011
From: Deana Vick

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Accept IOM"s recommendation preventative care

Date: Saturday, August 13, 2011 11:45:52 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.

I urge you to ensure women have EQUAL access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.

Deana Vick Davidson

AAUW-OML President

Cell: 925-808-8475

The American Association of University Women Promotes Equity for Women and Girls through

Advocacy, Education, Philanthropy and Research. The Orinda Moraga Lafayette (OML) Branch

supports Tech Trek, Sister to Sister, the Burkhalter School in Oakland and $tart $mart.
II

Calendar No. 137

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1198

To reauthorize Franchise Fund Pilot Programs.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 19, 2001

Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself and Mr. THOMPSON) introduced the following

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

AUGUST 2, 2001

Reported by Mr. LIEBERMAN, without amendment

A BILL

To reauthorize Franchise Fund Pilot Programs.

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

3 SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF FRANCHISE FUND

4 PILOT PROGRAMS.

5 Section 403(f) of the Federal Financial Management

6 Act of 1994 (31 U.S.C. 501 note) is amended by striking

7 ‘‘October 1, 2001’’ and inserting ‘‘October 1, 2002’’.
Calendar No. 137

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1198

A BILL

To reauthorize Franchise Fund Pilot Programs.

AUGUST 2, 2001

Reported without amendment
#### In the Matter of William Tilden, Deceased.

Motion for reargument denied. Opinion by

Daniels. J.

(See opinion.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                             192
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,974
<ALLOWANCES>                                        88
<INVENTORY>                                        227
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,909
<PP&E>                                          32,884
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,207
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  25,071
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,052
<BONDS>                                          6,954
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              651
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,228
<OTHER-SE>                                       (280)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,071
<SALES>                                         11,746
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,746
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,101
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 527
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,154
<INCOME-TAX>                                       825
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,329
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   (12)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,317
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.46
        

</TABLE>
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
THOM AS HENNIGHAN, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. INSPHER E INSUR

A NC E SOLUTIONS, INC ., De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-15983 D.C . No. 3:13-c v-00638-WHO
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia W illia m H. Orric k III, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay

11, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : M c KEOW

N a nd FRIEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s a nd LEFKOW , ** Se nior Distric t Judge
. Thom a s He nnigha

n a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s gra n t of sum m ary judgm e nt in fa vor of Insphe re Insura

nc e Solutions, Inc ., whic h found tha t He nnigha

n wa s a n 

# FIL ED MAY25 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Joa n H. Le fkow, Se nior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of Illinois, sitting by de signa t ion.inde pe nde nt c ontra c tor, not e m ploy e e of Insphe re . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a

nd a ffirm
. The pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c t s, so we will not re pe at the m he re . W e re vie w de novo a

distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt, vie wing thee vide nc e in the light m ost fa

vora ble to the non-m oving pa

rty . Albino v . Bac a , 747 F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th C ir. 2014) (e n ba nc ). W e re vie wthe distric t c ourt’ s e vide ntia ry rulings for a

buse of disc re tion. Ge n. Ele c . C o . v . J oine r , 522 U.S. 136, 141 (1997). He nnigha n a rgue s tha t the distric t

c ourt e rre d in e xc luding a n Insphe re offic e
m ana ge r’ s sta

te m e nts be fore the C a lifornia Une m ploy m e nt Insura

n c e Appe a ls B oa rd in a n unre late d c a se , a

nd e rre d in disre ga

rding portions of de c la

rations by He nnigha n a nd his c olle a gue s . Any

e rrors we re ha

rm le ss be c a

u se a dm ission of that e vide nc e would not ha

ve c ha nge d the re sult. Se e

, e .g. , Orr v . Bank of Am., N T & SA , 285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th C ir. 2002) (“ It follows tha t we m ust a ffirm the distric t c o urt unle ss its e vide ntia ry ruling wa s m anife stly

e rrone ous and pre j udic i a l.” ). W e a ffirm

the grant of sum

m ary judgm e nt for the re a sons se t forth by the distric t

c o urt in its Order date d April 21, 2014. AFFIRM E D.

2