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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:06:06 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,

Mat Kanhai

Winter Park, FL 32792
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 14

- 00593

- CV

Agua Special Utility District

v. Basilisa Perez Gonzalez, Rosalva Sosa, Raquel G. Chatriwala, Rogelio Gonzales, Rolando Gonzalez, Rebecca G. Ramirez, Ramon Gonzalez III, Roel Gonzalez, Ricardo Gonzalez a nd Heirs and Unknown Heirs, Assigns or Devisees of Ramon Gonzalez

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 8 of Hidalgo County , Texas

Trial Cause No. CCD

- 0125

- H

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, conclude s the appeal should be DISMISSED . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.

February 12, 2015
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         September 14, 2023.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 6, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 51 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2023-262, CP2023-265.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2023-19824 Filed 9-13-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
From: Jonathan Nash

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Access to Preventive Care and Contraception

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 10:52:11 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q AT
MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       9,546,450
<SECURITIES>                                 8,743,872
<RECEIVABLES>                               38,789,163
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,000,000
<INVENTORY>                                  7,310,034
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            62,335,578
<PP&E>                                     184,644,438
<DEPRECIATION>                              85,947,196
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             204,408,717
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       19,151,426
<BONDS>                                    156,622,862
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       250,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  23,353,353
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               204,408,717
<SALES>                                     50,538,869
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           194,794,115
<CGS>                                       43,638,457
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              180,076,437
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,750,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          13,400,641
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,142,534)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (3,214,140)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7,142,534)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,928,394)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
From: Bobbi Kravis

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 7:25:35 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Bobbi Kravis

494 Ninth Avenue #5-D

New York, NY 10018
September 3, 2002


Board of Directors and
Mr. Vito Bellezza, President
Tangent Solutions, Inc.
6801 Powerline Road
Ft. Lauderdale FL 33309


Gentlemen:

This  is  to  confirm  that  the  client-auditor  relationship  between  Tangent
Solutions,  Inc.  (Commission File Number 0-25213) and Sweeney,  Gates & Co. has
ceased.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Sweeney, Gates & Co.

Sweeney, Gates & Co.

cc:  Via Fax:   202-942-9656
      Attention: SECPS Letter File/Mail Stop 9-5

and by mail to:
         Office of the Chief Accountant
         SECPS Letter File
         Securities and Exchange Commission
         Mail Stop 9-5
         450 Fifth Street, N.W.
         Washington DC 20549
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 12, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 62559]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19655]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2853-073]


Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation; Notice 
of Waiver Period for Water Quality Certification Application

    On September 5, 2023, the Montana Department of Natural Resources 
and Conservation submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(Commission) a copy of its application for a Clean Water Act section 
401(a)(1) water quality certification filed with the Maine Department 
of Environmental Quality (Montana DEQ), in conjunction with the above 
captioned project. Pursuant to section 401 of the Clean Water Act \1\ 
and section 4.34(b)(5) of the Commission's regulations,\2\ a state 
certifying agency is deemed to have waived its certifying authority if 
it fails or refuses to act on a certification request within a 
reasonable period of time, which is one year after the date the 
certification request was received. Accordingly, we hereby notify 
Montana DEQ of the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).
    \2\ 18 CFR 4.34(b)(5) (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Date Montana DEQ received the certification request: September 1, 
2023.
    If Montana DEQ fails or refuses to act on the water quality 
certification request on or before September 1, 2024, then the agency 
certifying authority is deemed waived pursuant to Section 401(a)(1) of 
the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).

    Dated: September 6, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-19655 Filed 9-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
From: repepi

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: No religious exemptions for coverage of women"s preventive health care services

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 10:34:16 PM

To whom it may concern at the Department of 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 pertains 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. They are also likely to reduce costs and are medical practices

independent of religion or world view.

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 that have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations, which are reasonable, and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption

provisions.

Sincerely,

R. Pepi
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18-1738V

UNPUBLISHED

MICHELLE DEPINTO,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: April 14, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Andrew Donald Downing, Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ , for petitioner.

Traci R. Patton, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On November 8, 2018, Michelle DePinto filed a petition for compensation under 

the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.

2

(the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that that she suffered a left shoulder injury related to 

vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination received

on December 9, 2016. Petition at 1, 4. The case was assigned to the Special 

Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On April 13, 2020, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

at 1. Specifically, Respondent agrees that “petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with 

 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 

required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to 

the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to 

redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of 

privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such 

material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. 

§ 300aa (2012).
2

SIRVA, as defined on the Vaccine Injury Table. Specifically, petitioner had no history of 

pain, inflammation, or dysfunction in her left shoulder; her pain and reduced range of 

motion occurred within 48 hours of receipt of an intramuscular vaccination; her 

symptoms were limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered; and no 

other condition or abnormality was identified to explain her symptoms.” Id. at 4. 

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
SEF 2 xp
LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION

PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS
BRANCH

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

Docket: IRS-2010-0017

Requirement for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers to Provide Coverage of

REC-120 851-10

Page 1| of 1

‘As of: September 02, 2011
Received: August 11, 2011
Status: Posted

Posted: September 02, 2011
Tracking No. 80edde06

‘Comments Due: September 30, 2011

Submission Type: Web

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-2010-0017-0142
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: Constance Druzilla Hartmann Powell
Address:
12490 Quivira Rd Apt 2720
Overland Park, KS, 66213
Email: phantomscribbler@att.net
Phone: 681-2216

General Comment

People who don't believe in abortion shouldn't be forced to fund or support it in any way.

Abortion and abortifacients kill unborn children, and individuals, groups or companies who don't

want to be a part of killing unborn children shouldn't be forced or coerced to be a part of

something like that.

http://fdms.erulemaking net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectId=09000... 9/2/2011
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 172 (Thursday, September 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 61608]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19259]



[[Page 61608]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel, August 28, 2023, 12:00 p.m. 
to August 28, 2023, 05:00 p.m., National Institute on Aging, Gateway 
Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was 
published in the Federal Register on August 21, 2023, 56844.
    The meeting notice is amended to change the start date of the 
meeting from 08/28/2023, 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. to 10/30/2023, 12:00 
p.m. to 5:00 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: August 31, 2023.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-19259 Filed 9-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
From: craigsix@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:39:54 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,

Gail Craig

Honey Brook, PA 19344
From: mbis1@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: mbis1@verizon.net

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:06:02 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,

stephen brown

West Chester, PA 19380
#### Alan H. G. Hardwicke and others, Respondents, v. The Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 8, of the Towns of Hanover and Sheridan, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed Opinion by

Smith, P. J.