alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: dollfinney7@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:05:02 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,

Martin Finney

Salisbury, MD 21801
From: crwcindy@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:22:59 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,

CYNTHIA CHAMBERS

Smicksburg, PA 16256
SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to the products listed above. This AD results 

### from mandatory continuing airworthiness 14916-13-PI 

### DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation AdministratioD 14

# em Part 39 IDlXket No. FAA-ZOIO-08S4; 

### Directorate Identifier 

### 2009·NM~261-AD; Amendme 

# \b_:}.5"'l ZOII-<J(;:op 

# 39-...-; AD~..rr R1N 2126-AA64 AirwortlJines5 Directives; 

### Airbus Model A310 

### Series Airplanes 

### AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department ofTransportation (DOT). 

### ACTION: Final rule. n

infonnation 

### (MeAl) originated by an aviation authority of anolher country to identify and correct an unsare condition on an aviation product. The MeAl describes the unsafe 

### condition as: During High Time Equipment (HTE) reviews 

### conducted within the scope oflhe A310aircraft Design Service Goal (DSG) extension work, Airbus 

### discoveredthatthesplin~ couplingsandthesliding bearings 

### oftheflap transmission system could be affected 

### by corrosion and wear. especially when tbeir protective components such as wiper rings and rubber gaiters 

### could become defective. This condition. ifnot detected and corrected. could degrade the fWlctional 

### integrity ofthe flap translIlission system. 

# -k4M-II'1-

" I



# • • 

# • • 

# • • •

"
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                       9
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                   JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                     JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                             7,973
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>             2,132
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                  16,960
<TRADING-ASSETS>                       0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>       89,767
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>             5,949
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>               5,954
<LOANS>                          270,316
<ALLOWANCE>                        2,819
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   415,655
<DEPOSITS>                       315,498
<SHORT-TERM>                       6,100
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                4,011
<LONG-TERM>                       44,207
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                        2,064
<COMMON>                              19
<OTHER-SE>                        43,756
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>   415,655
<INTEREST-LOAN>                   13,090
<INTEREST-INVEST>                  2,488
<INTEREST-OTHER>                     632
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                  16,210
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                 7,127
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 8,068
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>              8,141
<LOAN-LOSSES>                        335
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                   503
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                    8,521
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    2,133
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>         2,133
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                       1,443
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        .73
<EPS-DILUTED>                        .69
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                         0
<LOANS-NON>                          817
<LOANS-PAST>                           0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                       0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                      484
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                   2,789
<CHARGE-OFFS>                        610
<RECOVERIES>                         304
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                  2,819
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>               2,819
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                    0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                0
        


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 2 - 0 612 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JO NAH MICAH WARR ,

Defendant and Appellant .

**G RANT**  Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until April 5 , 2023 , to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court February 27 2023

02/27/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0612
Docket: EBSA-2010-0011 

Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Dependent 

Coverage of Children to Age 26 Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0011-0001 

Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Dependent 

Coverage of Children to Age 26 Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

Document: EBSA-2010-0011-DRAFT-0008 

Comment on FR Doc # 2010-11391 

Submitter Information 

General Comment 

Group health plans are subject to ERISA and ERISA Sec. 3(39) defines “plan year” as the 

calendar, policy, or fiscal year on which the records of the plan are kept. Many times an ERISA 

plan year runs on a calendar year, but provides a group medical policy that renews at a later date 

(e.g. June 1). Can you please clarify in this scenario when a group health plan must comply with 

the requirements of Part A and C of Title I of the Patient Protection Act (including extending 

coverage to children up to age 26). Is it effective with the ERISA plan year (e.g. January 1, 2011 

or could it be delayed until June 1, 2011 in connection with the policy renewal.). There are 

varying interpretations. 

PUBLIC 

SUBMISSION 

As of: July 21, 2010 

Received: June 24, 2010 

Status: Pending_Post 

Tracking No. 80b09cec 

Comments Due: August 11, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Page 1 of 1

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=... 7/21/2010
From: bobarendts@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:35:47 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,

Robert Arendts

Notasulga, AL 36866
No. 222, Misc.

#### Arellanes *v.*United States.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Solicitor General Cox*for the United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-09-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                      17,706,170
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               17,051,713
<ALLOWANCES>                                   126,719
<INVENTORY>                                  7,191,397
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            43,502,643
<PP&E>                                      83,251,501
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             405,014,190
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       74,366,017
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       110,414
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,579,731
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               405,014,190
<SALES>                                      3,211,858
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            31,353,190
<CGS>                                        2,600,789
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               31,329,421
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               916,592
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,177,081
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,783,645)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7,783,645)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,783,645)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.71)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

                                Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Senesco Technologies, Inc.for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof, the undersigned, Bruce C. Galton,President and Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,that:

 

                                (1)           The Quarterly Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

                                (2)           The information contained in theQuarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of Senesco Technologies, Inc.

 
| Dated: November 14, 2008 |                                  | /s/ Bruce C. Galton * |
|-------------------------------|---------------------------------------|-----------------------|
|                          | Bruce C. Galton                       |
|                          | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                          | (principal executive officer)         |
|                          |                                  |

 

----

*  A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to usand will be retained by us and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
From: smtubergen@charter.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:23:59 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,

Sylvia Tubergen

Grand Haven, MI 49417
## MEMORANDUM

**DATE:** 11/20 /14 **FROM:** Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4 **TO:** Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR

– 2013

- 0602 **SUBJECT:** Discussion of the Clean Power Plan with South Carolina Department of Health and

Environmental Control and the Georgia Environmental Protection Division

**SUMMARY :**  

### Region 4 provided information on the Clean Power Plan with the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control and the Georgia Environmental Protection Division on August 12, 2014 

### . The Clea n Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was p roposed on June 2, 2014. **ATTENDEES :**  **EPA** Janet McCabe/EPA OAR Beverly Banister/EPA R4 Jeaneanne Gettle/EPA R4 Ken Mitchell/EPA R4 Lora Strine/EPA OAQPS Reid Harvey/EPA OAP Matt Clouse/EPA OAP Other EPA Staff **External Stakeholders** Myra Reece/SC DHEC Catherine Templeton/SC DHEC Elizabeth Diek/SC DHEC Mary Walker/GA EPD Keith Bentley/GA EPD Jud Turner/GA EPD **ATTACHMENT Advance Questions for Discussion of the Clean Power Plan wit**  **h South Caroline Department of** 

**Health and Environmental Control and the Georgia Environmental Protection Divison on 8 /**  **12 /14**  1. Can someone clearly explain how “under construction” nuclear energy is accounted for and why?? 2. Why does EPA feel it is important to include “under construction” nuclear in the target calculation? Including it in the target goal takes away any credit that we should get for our leadership in developing our new units. 3. Why doesn’t EPA view nuclear the same as renewable energy for this p roposal? Both are zero carbon emission sources. 4. Does EPA agree that the country gets the benefit of the carbon reduction achieved by the “under construction” nuclear and understand that it is the rate payers ONLY in SC & GA that are paying the costs ($24 BILLION) for this reduction? 5. What’s does EPA’s federal implementation plan (FIP) look like? It is imperative that we know this before we approach our legislature on approving our state plan. 6. For SC, the 111(d) standard will be much more stringent that the 111(b). Is that EPA’s intent? 7. Why did EPA choose an interim goal, and not just a final 2030 goal? Impossible for SC to develop a cost effective plan in that time frame. 8. Since this rule is so complex, legally vulnerable and resource intensive to states, will EPA consider expanding the timeframe for state plan submittals?
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-30545 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee

v. TOMMIE L. THOMAS, JR., Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:10-CR-261-3
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE UNITED STATES Before JOLLY, JONES and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * 

### After our opinion was issued in this case, the Supreme Court decide d Dorsey v . United States , 132 S. Ct. 2321 (2012). Dorsey held, contrary to our opinion, that the more lenient penalties of the Fair Sentencing Act (“Act”) apply U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

## F I L E D Novembe r 19, 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-30545 Document: 00512058324 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/19/2012

### No. 11-30545

to o ffenders who committed an offense before the Act was passed, but were sentenced after the Act was enacted. We VACATE and REMAND this case for resentencing consistent with the Court’s holding in Dorsey

. Con viction AFFIRMED; VACATED and REMANDED for Resentencing

.

2 Case: 11-30545 Document: 00512058324 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/19/2012
From: Kathleen Dodge

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Please make sure to expand preventive services

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:50:57 PM

Women need easy access to preventive services including reproductive services. Please make sure that

these services are covered in any insurance plans and are available at a wide range of physician's

offices, clinics and hospitals within easy commutes.

Sent from my iPhone by clumsy fingered Kath
STEAM ELECTRIC

CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: ________________________________________

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.

SE04360A150
|  | ***Draft Report:*AN EVALUATION OF APPROXIMATE ORIGINAL CONTOUR AND POSTMINING LAND USE IN WEST VIRGINIA** |
|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|