alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: lhasa7@earthlink.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:48:07 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,

Philip Smith

Berkeley, CA 94703
No. 661, Misc.

#### Stacey *v.*Illinois.

*Gerald W. Getty*and *James J. Doherty*for petitioner.

Supreme Court of Illinois. Certiorari denied.
## I 

# ,

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of-- Northrop Grumman Corporation Under Contract No. F04701-02-C-0002 APPEARANCES FORTHE APPELLANT: ) ) ) ) )

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 59077
Terry L. Albertson, Esq. Stephen J. McBrady, Esq.

Crowell & Moring LLP Washington, DC E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq.

DCMA ChiefTrial Attorney Carol L. Matsunaga, Esq.

Senior Trial Attorney Defense Contract Management Agency Carson, CA ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Dated: 5 August 2014

# ~ Administrative Judge Vice Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59077, Appeal ofNorthrop Grumman Corporation, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:
JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
From: jamesbell43@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

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

James Bell

Annandale, VA 22003
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-2043 

TAWANA S. ALLEN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

FORD CREDIT,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District

Judge. (CA-04-310-1)

Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 20, 2004

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tawana S. Allen, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Lynn Ogburn, III, Nancy

Lewis Huegerich, POYNER & SPRUILL, L.L.P., Charlotte, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Tawana S. Allen appeals the district court’s order

dismissing her civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court. See Allen v. Ford Credit, No. CA-04-

310-1 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 16, 2004). We dispense with oral 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
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-17-00251-CV

IN THE ESTATE OF STEVEN DOUGLAS 

NIELSEN, DECEASED

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from Probate Court No. 2

of Tarrant County (2015-PR01535-2)

September 27, 2018

Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth

Dissent by Justice Gabriel

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that Appellant Linda Nielsen shall pay all of the costs of 

this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

 Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted Pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

In  connection  with the annual  report of  Receivable  Acquisition & Management
Corporation  (the  "COMPANY") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended  September 30,
2006 as filed with the SEC on the date hereof (the "REPORT"),  I hereby certify,
in my capacity as an officer of the Company, for purposes of 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that to my
knowledge:

(1)   The Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



                                                 /s/ Max Khan
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 By: Max Khan
                                                 Chief Executive Officer,
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
                                                 DATE: January 8, 2007


                                       43
From: margaret.welter@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:56:37 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,

Margaret Welter

Bartlett, IL 60103
Enclosure 4

SIP completeness checklist
Enclosure 4

COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST FOR SIP REVISION

Revisions to 2007 PM2.5 and Ozone State Implementation Plan for South Coast 

Air Basin and Coachella Valley

Planning Area: South Coast Air Quality Management District

Title 40 CFR, Part 51, Appendix V –

Criteria for Determining the Completeness 

of Plan Submissions

Enclosed Notes

ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS

2.1(a) Submittal Letter from Governor's 

Designee x See submittal letter.

2.1(b) Evidence of Adoption x

SCAQMD Resolution 11-9 and

ARB Resolution 11-24.

2.1(c) Legal Authority Citation x

ARB Resolution 11-24 and 

Executive Order S-11-010.

2.1(d) Copy of :

a. Attainment Plan

b: Contingency Measures

N/A Not Applicable.

2.1(e) Evidence of Compliance with State's 

Procedural Requirements x

SCAQMD Resolution 11-9 and 

ARB Resolution 11-24.

2.1(f) Evidence of Public Notice Consistent with 

40 CFR part 51.102 x

See Enclosure 1 of the submittal letter

and Enclosure 3 of the submittal letter.

2.1(g) Certification of Public Hearing in 

Accordance with Notice x

SCAQMD Resolution 11-9 and 

ARB Resolution 11-24.

2.1(h) Compilation of Public Comments and 

Responses x See Enclosure 1 of the submittal letter.

2.2(a) Identification of Regulated Pollutant N/A Not Applicable.

2.2(b) Identification of Attainment Area/Status N/A Not applicable.

2.2(c) Estimate of Plan's Impact on Emissions x See Enclosure 1 of the submittal letter.

2.2(d) Demonstration that Plan 

Approval/Implementation Protects 

NAAQS 

x See Enclosure 1 of the submittal letter.

2.2(e) Modeling Support N/A Not Applicable.

2.2(f)- Compliance/Enforcement and 

2.2(i) Justification N/A Not Applicable.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GERALD SPENCE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

KELLY SANTORO, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-15898

D.C. No. 1:18-cv-01363-LJO-SAB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 11, 2019**

Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Gerald Spence appeals pro se from the district 

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

indifference to his safety and serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 

* 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

DEC 16 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-15898 

U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 

(9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Resnick v. Hayes, 

213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We 

affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Spence’s action because Spence failed 

to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claims. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 

F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be construed 

liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible 

claim for relief); see also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833-34 (1994) (setting 

forth elements of a failure-to-protect claim); Maxwell v. County of San Diego, 708 

F.3d 1075, 1097 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[T]here is no respondeat superior liability under 

§ 1983.”); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-58 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth 

elements of a medical deliberate indifference claim).

We reject as meritless Spence’s contention that the district court applied a 

“different” pleading standard to his claims.

Spence’s “Request for Certificate of Appealability” is denied as 

unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2139

___________

Samuel E. Haley, Jr., *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

William Galloway; Mason; Jimmy *

Payne; Plummer; Grimm; Michael * [UNPUBLISHED]

Kemna; Jean Ann Johnson; Ann Page; *

Russell Hollowell; Shanna Keeter; *

Amy Gertz; D. Greene; L. Carr; P. *

Gans; John Doe; Matthews, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: March 19, 2004

Filed: March 26, 2004

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
1

The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri. 

-2-

Missouri inmate Samuel E. Haley, Jr., appeals the district court’s1 orders

disposing of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having carefully reviewed the voluminous

record in this case, we conclude that the district court was required to grant

defendants’ motion to dismiss Haley’s lawsuit for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (prisoner shall not bring § 1983 prisonconditions lawsuit before exhausting available administrative remedies). After the

served defendants moved to dismiss, Haley did not present proof he had exhausted

all the medical/retaliation claims raised in his original complaint, his supplement, and

his motion to reopen. See Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003)

(dismissal required when inmate has not administratively exhausted before filing

lawsuit); Graves v. Norris, 218 F.3d 884, 885-86 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam)

(dismissal proper where at least some of claims were unexhausted). 

Accordingly, we need not address Haley’s remaining arguments on appeal, and

we affirm the dismissal of Haley’s lawsuit, but we modify the dismissal to be without

prejudice. See Chelette v. Harris, 229 F.3d 684, 688 (8th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531

U.S. 1156 (2001). We also deny Haley’s pending motions. 

______________________________
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Educational TechnologyElementary Secondary EducationGraphing CalculatorsMathematics InstructionTeaching Methods

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
From: Marge Hinson

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 7:40:54 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,

Marge Hinson
Lucernemines, Pennsylvania
```

[House Report 107-718]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     107-718

======================================================================

 
   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 112, MAKING 
       FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2003

                                _______
                                

  October 2, 2002.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Hastings of Washington, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 568]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 568, by a voice vote, report the same to the 
House with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

                SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

    The resolution provides for consideration of House Joint 
Resolution 112, making further continuing appropriations for 
the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes, under a closed 
rule. The rule provides one hour of debate in the House equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Appropriations.
    The rule waives all points of order against consideration 
of the joint resolution. Finally, the rule provides one motion 
to recommit.

                                  

```
<XBRL>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<!--XBRL Document Created with the Workiva Platform-->
<!--Copyright 2023 Workiva-->
<!--r:ce9cdaa5-49a5-433b-8ae1-a8fd7877cc4a,g:7efd28a8-5284-483e-a844-05ea8de9d145-->
<xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:link="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase" xmlns:pnw="http://pinnaclewest.com/20231109" xmlns:xbrli="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance" xmlns:dtr-types="http://www.xbrl.org/dtr/type/2020-01-21" attributeFormDefault="unqualified" elementFormDefault="qualified" targetNamespace="http://pinnaclewest.com/20231109">
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xlink-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xbrl-instance-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xbrl-linkbase-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/dtr/type/2020-01-21" schemaLocation="https://www.xbrl.org/dtr/type/2020-01-21/types.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://xbrl.sec.gov/dei/2022" schemaLocation="https://xbrl.sec.gov/dei/2022/dei-2022.xsd"/>
  <xs:annotation>
    <xs:appinfo>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="pnw-20231109_lab.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/labelLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="pnw-20231109_pre.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="pnw-20231109_def.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/definitionLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:roleType id="DocumentEntityandInformationDEI" roleURI="http://pinnaclewest.com/role/DocumentEntityandInformationDEI">
        <link:definition>0000001 - Document - Document Entity and Information DEI</link:definition>
        <link:usedOn>link:presentationLink</link:usedOn>
        <link:usedOn>link:calculationLink</link:usedOn>
        <link:usedOn>link:definitionLink</link:usedOn>
      </link:roleType>
    </xs:appinfo>
  </xs:annotation>
  <xs:element id="pnw_ArizonaPublicServiceCompanyMember" abstract="true" name="ArizonaPublicServiceCompanyMember" nillable="true" xbrli:periodType="duration" substitutionGroup="xbrli:item" type="dtr-types:domainItemType"/>
</xs:schema>
</XBRL>