alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 1

Ree 1avsai-/0

LEGAL PROCESstivt; DIV As of: September 01, 2011

ISION Received: August 15, 2011
PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS Status: Posted “

PUBTiXSUBMISSION Posted: September 01, 2011
Tracking No. 80ee17ce

Comments Due: September 30, 2011
Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0017
Requirement for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers to Provide Coverage of
Preventive Services under the PatientProtection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0017-0038
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services
under Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment

Document: IRS-2010-0017-0112
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: Andrew Michael Rose
Address:

Seattle, WA, 98115
Email: arose_1@yahoo.com

General Comment

I strongly support the new policy requiring health-insurance plans to cover birth control without a
co-pay, CMS-9992-IFC2. Thank you for this important improvement to women's health care.

I also want you to know that I am concerned that certain religious employers may be allowed to
opt out of the requirements. All women should have access to contraceptive coverage, regardless
of where they work.

This policy finally should make near-universal access to birth control a reality for all women who
use it.

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectId=09000..._ 9/1/2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          24,733
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,838
<ALLOWANCES>                                       891
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         331,668
<DEPRECIATION>                                  56,837
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 319,135
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        222,029
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            39
<OTHER-SE>                                      86,094
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   319,135
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                54,462
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,424
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,578
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,337
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,765
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,599
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,599
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,599
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.22
        

</TABLE>
No. 337.

#### Pederson *v.*Minnesota et al.

Motion for leave to dispense with printing the petition granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Minnesota denied.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

November 3, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-30838

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PHILLIP K. SIAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 99-CR-60034-1

Before GARWOOD, EMILIO M. GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Philip K. Sias, federal prisoner # 10304-035, was convicted of

using and carrying a firearm during the commission of a violent

crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924, and this court affirmed his

conviction and sentence. U nited States v. Sias

, 227 F.3d 244 (5th

Cir. Sept. 8, 2000). Sias now appeals the July 23, 2002, denial of

his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion filed July 16, 2002. After we2

remanded to the district court for a finding (to be returned to

this court) on the timeliness of the notice of appeal from the July

23, 2002 order, Fed. R. App. P. 26 was amended to provide

additional days for a notice of appeal. We need not decide whether

it is “just and practicable” to apply the new rule to the instant

case. S ee F ED

. R. A PP

. P., O RDER OF A PRIL 29, 2002. Regardless of the

timeliness of the notice of appeal, Sias’s appeal is dismissed

because it is frivolous. S ee United States v. Alvarez , 210 F.3d

309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000).

Sias argues that (1) his plea agreement may have been breached

by the court’s decision to upwardly depart in arriving at his

sentence and (2) the court failed to give notice of and

jus tification for its upward departure. These arguments are not

cognizable in an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motio n as that motion is

used only to raise an issue of the retroactive applicati on of a

subsequently lowered sentencing range. S ee United States v. Shaw

,

30 F.3d 26, 29 (5th Cir. 1994). Sias also argues that Amendment

598 to the Sentencing Guidelines provides for a reduction in his

sentence. Amendment 598 (effective November 1, 2000) is not listed

in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 and therefore may not be applied retroactively

on Sias’s motion. S ee United States v. Drath

, 89 F.3d 216, 218

(5th Cir. 1996).

Sias’s appeal is frivolous because it lacks an arguable basis

in law or fact. See McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin Dist.3

1

, 486 U.S. 429, 439-40 & n.10 (1985). Accordingly, the appeal is

DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
From: jwpete777@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:12:46 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,

Joel Peterson

Scottsdale, AZ 85255
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. This meeting will be held via teleconference through the Microsoft Teams Platform.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Monday, October 23, 2023.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Conchata Holloway at 1-888-912-1227 or 214-413-6550.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be held Monday, October 23, 2023, at 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. For more information, please contact Conchata Holloway at 1-888-912-1227 or 214-413-6550, or write TAP Office, 1114 Commerce St., MC 1005, Dallas, TX 75242 or contact us at the website:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

The agenda will include the potential project referrals from the committees, and discussions on priorities the TAP will focus on for the 2023 year. Public input is welcomed.

Dated: September 6, 2023.

Kevin Brown,

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. 2023-19751 Filed 9-12-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 12, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 62581]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19618]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Biological Chemistry and Macromolecular 
Biophysics Integrated Review Group; Macromolecular Structure and 
Function A Study Section.
    Date: October 3-4, 2023.
    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Bethesda Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD 
20814.
    Contact Person: Ian Frederick Thorpe, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 903K, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 
480-8662, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9ef7fff0b0eaf6f1eceefbdef0f7f6b0f9f1e8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="147d757a3a607c7b666471547a7d7c3a737b62">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: Biobehavioral and Behavioral Processes 
Integrated Review Group; Language and Communication Study Section.
    Date: October 5-6, 2023.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Rochelle Francine Hentges, Ph.D., Scientific 
Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 1000C, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 
402-8720, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f49c919a809391878692b499959d98da9a9d9cda939b82"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6e060b001a090b1d1c082e030f07024000070640090118">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 6, 2023.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-19618 Filed 9-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### John Olmstead v. Mary L. Keys.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted. Opinion by

Haight, J.;

Lewis, J , concurs; Bradley J., not voting ; Barker, J., not sitting.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50356 Summary Calendar

TAMMY WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-96-CV-293

- - - - - - - - - - January 13, 1998 Before JONES, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Tammy Williams appeals from the district court’s judgment affirming the denial of her application for supplemental security income benefits. Williams argues that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) is not supported by substantial evidence; that the ALJ failed to consider her IQ as a severe mental impairment; that the ALJ failed to consider her complaints in combination; that the ALJ failed to properly complete theNo. 97-50356 -2- Psychiatric Review Technique Form; that the ALJ failed to give proper weight to the opinion of Williams’ treating physician; and that the ALJ posed an inadequate hypothetical question to the vocational expert. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED for essentially the reasons stated by the district court. See Williams v. Callahan , No. SA-96-CV-293 (W.D. Tex. March 14, 1997).
AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                        <C>                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                            11,852
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     36,652
<ALLOWANCES>                                         668
<INVENTORY>                                       30,026
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  84,260
<PP&E>                                            34,080
<DEPRECIATION>                                    15,970
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   138,158
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             52,158
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                             137
<OTHER-SE>                                       114,425
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     138,158
<SALES>                                           48,556
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  48,556
<CGS>                                             22,842
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     22,842
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  23,825
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 4,927
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (865)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         773
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (865)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (1,638)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (.18)
        

</TABLE>
-81 -80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75

 38

 39

 40

 41

★

▲ ▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲

▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

08/07

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 07 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.86 N 77.06 W Meters AGL
99–008

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ! 2d Session 107–696

WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE 

REPORT TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 2215, 21ST CENTURY DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT

SEPTEMBER 25, 2002.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mrs. PRYCE of Ohio, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 552] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 552, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution waives all points of order against the conference 

report to accompany H.R. 2215, the 21st Century Department of 

Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, and against its consideration. The rule further provides that the conference report shall be 

considered as read.

Æ
Exhibit 10.8.1
 Form of Director Change of Control Agreement  Full Single-Trigger
  
     (i)
    
    The acquisition by any person (as such term is used in Sections 13(d) and
14(d) of the Exchange Act) of beneficial ownership (as defined in Rule 13d-3 under
said Act), directly or indirectly, of securities of the Company representing fifty
percent (50%) or more of the total voting power represented by the Companys then
outstanding voting securities (it being understood that securities owned by any person
on the date hereof shall not be counted against such limit with respect to such
person); or(ii)
    
    A change in the composition of the Board of Directors of the Company (the
Board) occurring within a rolling two-year period, as a result of which fewer than a
majority of the directors are Incumbent Directors. Incumbent Directors shall mean
directors who either (A) are members of the Board as of the date hereof, or (B) are
elected, or nominated for election, to the Board with the affirmative votes of at least
a majority of the Incumbent Directors at the time of such election or nomination (but
shall not include an individual not otherwise an Incumbent Director whose election or
nomination is in connection with an actual or threatened proxy contest relating to the
election of directors to the Board); or




---



##### 



(iii)
    
    A merger or consolidation involving the Company other than a merger or
consolidation which would result in the voting securities of the Company
outstanding immediately prior thereto continuing to represent (either by remaining
outstanding or by being converted into voting securities of the Surviving Entity
(including the parent corporation of such Surviving Entity)) at least fifty percent
(50%) of the total voting power represented by the voting securities of the Company
or such Surviving Entity outstanding immediately after such merger or consolidation,
or a sale or disposition by the Company of all or substantially all the Companys
assets.
    
 
 
 2
From: barbara.fenlason@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:52:54 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,

barbara fenlason

Bucksport, ME 04416