alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Jennifer D"Agostino

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 12:08:39 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,

Jennifer D'Agostino
Triangle, Virginia
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 12(b)



                            D&N CAPITAL CORPORATION
               Computation of ratio of earnings to fixed charges
                   and preferred stock dividend requirements



                                           For the Six Months Ended
                                               June 30, 1999
                                           --------------------------
                                           (In thousands, except ratio)


       Net income                                    $1,836

       Fixed charges:
           Advisory fees                                 63

       Total fixed charges                               63

       Earnings before fixed charges                  1,899

       Fixed charges, as above                           63

       Preferred stock dividend requirement           1,362

       Fixed charges including preferred
           stock dividends                           $1,425

       Ratio of earnings to fixed charges and
           preferred stock dividends requirements      1.33
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 96-60442 Summary Calendar

____________________

RODNEY BELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RAYMOND ROBERTS,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Mississippi (4:96CV189-S-B)

__ ______________________________________________________________ November 6, 1996 Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

In this case, the plai ntiff alleges no basis for a claim of

denial of constitutional due process. His pleadings reflect that

he is essentially dissatisfied with the result of the disciplinary

proceedings. In addition, he alleges only in the most general

terms that the defendants’ dec isions violated his rights (which

were undescribed) and that the decisions were against the weight ofthe evidence. These allegations do not rise to the level of

stating a section 1983 claim, and such bare allegations do not

require a Spears ’ hearing to develop the clai m. S ee Spears v.

McCotter , 766 F.2d 179, 181 (5th Cir. 1985). The judgment of the

district court, dismissing the complaint is therefore

A F F I R M E D.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 153 (Thursday, August 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48434-48435]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19216]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R07-SFUND-2013-0463; FRL-9844-6]

Proposed Administrative Cost Recovery Settlement Under Section 
122(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and 
Liability Act, as Amended, 42 U.S.C. 9622(h), Carter Carburetor 
Superfund Site, St. Louis, Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act, as amended 
(CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a proposed 
administrative settlement with Carter Building, Inc., St. Louis, 
Missouri, for the compromise of past and projected future oversight 
costs concerning the Carter Carburetor Superfund Site in St. Louis, 
Missouri. The settlement includes a covenant not to sue with the 
settling party pursuant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a). 
For thirty

[[Page 48435]]

(30) days following the date of publication of this notice, EPA will 
receive written comments relating to the compromise of costs component 
of the settlement. EPA will consider all comments and may modify or 
withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose 
facts or considerations which indicate that the compromise of costs is 
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. EPA's response to any comments 
received will be available for public inspection at the EPA Region 7 
office located at 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 9, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement is available for public inspection 
at the EPA Region 7 office, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas, 
Monday through Friday, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. through 4:00 p.m. 
A copy of the proposed settlement may be obtained from the Regional 
Hearing Clerk, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219, (913) 551-
7567 or email address robinson.kathy@epa.gov. Requests should reference 
the Carter Carburetor Superfund Site, EPA Docket No. CERCLA-07-2013-
0009. Comments should be addressed to: J. Scott Pemberton, Senior 
Assistant Regional Counsel, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 
66219. The proposed settlement is also available at the following Web 
site: http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/epa-region-7-midwest.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J. Scott Pemberton, at telephone: 
(913) 551-7276; fax number: (913) 551-7925/Attn: J. Scott Pemberton; 
email address: pemberton.scott@epa.gov.

    Dated: July 31, 2013.
Robert W. Jackson,
Acting Division Director, Superfund Division, EPA Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2013-19216 Filed 8-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
From: Karen Parrish Baker, Ph.D.

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Support Access to Preventive Care and Contraception!

Date: Friday, August 19, 2011 1:27:40 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. Some groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to

religiously-run health providers. If this were to come to pass, Catholic hospitals 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.
#### Jacob Falkel v. George Moore and others.

Motion for reargument denied.

*Per Curiam*

opinion left with clerk.
From: petemary2141@earthlink.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:26:40 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,

Robert Peterson

Austin, TX 78729
From: Samir Sheikh <Samir.Sheikh@valleyair.org>

Date: June 9, 2016 at 4:57:19 PM PDT

To: "Drake.Kerry@epa.gov" <Drake.Kerry@epa.gov>

Cc: Sheraz Gill <Sheraz.Gill@valleyair.org>, Dave Warner <dave.warner@valleyair.org>

Subject: Manure Land Application

Hi Kerry, please see the below write-up as per our discussion (much thanks to Dave's team for putting this 

together). 

The vast majority of manure generated from dairies and other cattle facilities in the San Joaquin Valley will be 

applied to cropland in the surrounding area because the manure is generally utilized as fertilizer to grow the crops 

that are fed to the cattle. The manure used as fertilizer must be applied in accordance with Nutrient Management 

Plans that have been approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board to avoid excessive application of 

nitrogen and other nutrients. Liquid manure will always be applied on nearby cropland. Solid manure may be 

applied to fields that are further away while a small amount may be composted and sold as a soil 

amendment. District Rule 4570 – Confined Animal Facilities specifies requirements and options to reduce VOC 

emissions from dairies and other cattle facilities in the San Joaquin Valley. For land application of solid manure 

the most common option chosen to comply with the rule is to incorporate all solid manure within 72 hours of land 

application. 75% of the permitted dairy facilities have selected this option to comply with the manure land 

application requirements of District Rule 4570. Of the 25% of dairies that have not selected this option, the 

majority of the solid waste will still be land applied, due to lack of other alternatives.
From: irishspring6@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:26:57 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,

elizabeth white

Huntington Beach, CA 92647
From: garyabarton@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:53:53 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,

Gary Barton

Johnston, IA 50131
From: ellerkamp5@ndsupernet.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Re: the proposed definition of “religious employer.”

Date: Thursday, August 25, 2011 4:00:03 PM

To Whom it May Concern:

The current definition of religious employer does not provide true

conscience protection for those committed to preserving life. Healthcare

plans should not be forced to violate the moral and religious convictions

of providers or employees in order to participate in the health care

system. Requiring such an unacceptable demand threatens both universal

access to health care and religious freedom of conscience.

I sincerely hope you will reconsider this definition and give ture

conscience protection to all.

Sincerely,

Amanda Ellerkamp
No. 342.

#### Baehr et al. *v.*United States.

*Carl L. Shipley, Thomas A. Ziebarth*and *Samuel Resnicoff*for petitioners.

*Solicitor General Cox, Acting Assistant Attorney General Guilfoyle*and *John G. Laughlin, Jr.*for the United States.

Court of Claims. Certiorari denied.
From: Jennifer Bunner

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Please accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 10:47:23 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.
From: lzbthcloud@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:48:24 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,

Elizabeth Cloud

San Bernardino, CA 92407