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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:00:40 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,

Wes Pate

Florence, AL 35633
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

July 28, 2003

Before

Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

No. 02-1945

AKEEM AKI-KHUAM,

f/k/a EDWARD EARL WILLIAMS,

Petitioner-Appellee,

v.

CECIL DAVIS, Superintendent,

Respondent-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the Northern District

of Indiana, South Bend Division.

No. 00 C 386

Allen Sharp, Judge.

O R D E R

This court’s opinion dated May 8, 2003 is hereby vacated. A new opinion will issue.
From: annracer@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:40:18 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,

Bob and Ann Hudson

San Jose, CA 95124
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

1 60029 ( 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 C hief 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 fil ing if submitted on or before January 2 7 , 2020

. No

further extensions will be granted.
**MPD** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19 - 0670 STATE OF MONTANA ,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MATTHEW DOUGLAS WEBB ,

Respondent and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 3 0 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is gran ted an extension of time to and including February 22 , 202 1 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 14 2021

01/14/2021

Case Number: DA 19-0670
From: SUSAN ALPERN

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Access to contraception

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:56:14 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.
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of ALCO, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 (the "Report"), I, Colman Au, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.    By: /s/ Colman Au, Chief Financial Officer  Date: March 25, 2010
II

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 112

To terminate operation of the Extremely Low Frequency Communication

System of the Navy.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 22, 2001

Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. KOHL, and Mr. WYDEN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on

Armed Services

A BILL

To terminate operation of the Extremely Low Frequency

Communication System of the Navy.

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

3 SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF OPERATION OF THE EX4 TREMELY LOW FREQUENCY COMMUNICA5 TION SYSTEM.

6 (a) TERMINATION REQUIRED.—The Secretary of the

7 Navy shall terminate the operation of the Extremely Low

8 Frequency Communication System of the Navy.

9 (b) MAINTENANCE OF INFRASTRUCTURE.—The Sec10 retary shall maintain the infrastructure necessary for re-
2

•S 112 IS

1 suming operation of the Extremely Low Frequency Com2 munication System.

Æ
#### Leslie H. Babcock, Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed. Opinion by

Merwin, J.;

Follett, J., not sitting
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 614 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                      November 15 (legislative day, November 14), 2002.
    Resolved, That a revised edition of the Rules and Manual of the House of 
Representatives for the One Hundred Eighth Congress be printed as a House 
document, and that three thousand additional copies shall be printed and bound 
for the use of the House of Representatives, of which nine hundred copies shall 
be bound in leather with thumb index and delivered as may be directed by the 
Parliamentarian of the House.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
|   | (1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended December 31, 2010, (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| February 8, 2011 |   | /s/Rod C. Steiger                     |
|------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
| Date             |   | Rod C. Steiger                        |
|             |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|             |   |                                  |
|             |   |                                  |
|             |   |                                  |
| February 8, 2011 |   | /s/H. Stewart Fitz Gibbon III         |
| Date             |   | H. Stewart Fitz Gibbon III            |
|             |   | Executive Vice President and          |
|             |   | Chief Financial Officer               |
From: Laurie Davis

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Sunday, August 07, 2011 10:10:31 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,

Laurie Davis
Tallahassee, Florida
Merrimack,

Dec. 1, 1914.

#### Charles F. M. Stark, *Ap’t, v.*Arthur Winslow.

Probate Appeal. The plaintiff was cited into the probate court to settle his account as trustee under the will of Harriet Stark. The court not only charged him with the accumulated income of the trust fund, but ordered him to pay it to St. Paul’s School, and from the latter part of the decree he appealed. At the April term, 1914, of the superior court, the appeal was dismissed by *Branch,*J., and the plaintiff excepted.

*Martin & Howe (Mr. Howe*orally), for the plaintiff.

*Samuel C. Eastman*(by brief and orally), for the defendant.

*Foster & Lake,*for St. Paul’s School.

Young, J.

The probate court has no jurisdiction of the distribution of personal property passing by will. P. S., C.-196, s. 6. Consequently it had no power to make the decree appealed from. The order must therefore be,

*Appeal sustained: decree of the probate court vacated in so far as it relates to the distribution of the accumulated income.*

All concurred.
No. 506, Misc.

#### Carmelo *v.*Maxwell, Warden.

Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.

Treating the papers submitted as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.
From: Maria Studer

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: contraception

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 8:11:26 AM

To Health and Human Services:

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,

Maria Studer

127 Springtime Lane West

Levittown, NY 11756

rstuder@optonline.net
Exhibit 11a    


                              Ameritech Corporation
                    Computation of Primary Earnings Per Share
                                        
                                        
                                         1996            1995             1994
                                         ----            ----             ----
Income before extraordinary
item                            2,133,712,000  $2,007,635,000   $1,170,426,000
                               ==============  ==============   ==============

Weighted average number of
shares outstanding                551,853,953     553,621,693      549,238,304

Additional dilutive effect of
outstanding options (as determined
by the application of the treasury
stock method)                       2,288,000       1,757,528          939,584
                               --------------  --------------   --------------

Weighted average shares outstanding
on which primary earnings per share
are based                         554,141,953     555,379,221      550,177,188

Primary earnings per share              $3.85           $3.61            $2.13
                               ==============  ==============   ==============




This calculation is submitted in accordance with Regulation S-K, Item 601
(b)11, although not required by footnote 2 to paragraph 14 of Accounting
Principles Board Opinion No. 15 because it results in dilution of less
than three percent.  Accordingly, reported EPS does not consider dilutive
securities.


Amounts for prior years have been restated to reflect inclusion of the
windfall tax benefit when applying the treasury stock method to determine
the dilutive effect of outstanding options.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

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.

 March 2, 2021 t0222

Order 

Clerk

March 2, 2021

161450

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 161450

COA: 352963

Wayne CC: 15-008467-FC

MALCOLM BERNARD BENSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 22, 2020 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
From: Sari Jensen

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Support Access to Preventive Care and Contraception!

Date: Friday, August 12, 2011 2:04:10 AM

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.
From: Mary Stanton-Anderson

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Preventive care for women

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:18:52 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.

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 unfairly deny

access to many 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.

Mary Stanton-Anderson, MD

Ob-Gyn; Tacoma, Washington