alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: benjudah0708@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:01:34 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,

Estelle Putrich

Twinsburg, OH 44087
From: Jim Kunz

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Preventive Care & Contraception

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:27:46 PM

HHS People:

It seems to me that support of both of these issues is a no-brainer.

Preventive medical care, particularly on a "means test" basis, will keep many people

out of much more expensive emergency care and generate better health amongst

our population.. That, alone, is enough rationalization to support preventive

care adamantly.

Contraception is a personal choice. Politically, conservatives want less government

involvement in their lives---this is a very good place to start. Contraception prevents

unwanted off-spring, lessens welfare expenses, it eliminates the debate and need

for abortions, helps maintain a woman's health and helps us slow population growth

and resource consumption. With slower population growth more people should be

able to be employed, thus, assisting everyone's economic health.

It seems obvious that these two issues need be maximally supported. There is no

down-side.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-01-1997
<CASH>                                              83
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      429
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      18186
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 22068
<PP&E>                                           10591
<DEPRECIATION>                                    4488
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   28711
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            11849
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            51
<OTHER-SE>                                       15995
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     28711
<SALES>                                          23782
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 23782
<CGS>                                            18996
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    18996
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  9927
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 201
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (5332)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (2186)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3146)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3146)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.76)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
From: colee@k12tn.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:23:46 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,

Erika Cole

Mc Kenzie, TN 38201
No. 1020, Misc.,

October Term, 1961.

#### Pugh *v.*Virginia,

370 U. S. 927. Petition for rehearing denied.

Mr. Justice Goldberg took no part in the consideration or decision of this application.
No. 323, Misc.

#### Hughes *v.*United States.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg*and *Julia P. Cooper*for the United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
* 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. 96-40670 Conference Calendar

FREDERICK TYRONE RIDGE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus PAIGE MILLER, Criminal District Attorney, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:96-CV-159

- - - - - - - - - - December 11, 1996 Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Frederick Tyrone Ridge, Texas state prisoner #542124, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint as frivolous and imposition of sanctions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Because Ridge’s appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. WeNo. 96-40670 - 2 - previously warned Ridge that frivolous appeals could result in sanctions against him. See Ridge v. Scott , No. 94-60747 (5th Cir. March 22, 1995). Accordingly, Ridge is BARRED from filing
any pro se , in forma pauperis , civil appeal in this court without the prior written approval of a judge of this court in active service. Further, he is BARRED from filing any pro se , in forma pauperis , initial civil pleading in any court which is subject to this court’s jurisdiction, without the advance written permission of a judge of the forum court. The clerk of this court and the clerks of all federal district courts subject to the jurisdiction of this court are directed to return to Ridge, unfiled, any attempted submission inconsistent with this bar.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS IMPOSED.
Douglas Saitta 

imprisonment, see NRS 207.190(1)(a), (2)(a); Parrish v. State, 116 Nev. 

982, 989, 12 P.3d 953, 957 (2000). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.' 

cc: Hon. Brent T. Adams, District Judge 

Marc Picker, Esq., Ltd. 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

'Turner's fast track statement does not comply with NRAP 

3C(h)(1) and NRAP 32(a)(4) because it does not have 1-inch margins on all 

four sides. We caution Turner's counsel, Marc Picker, that future failure 

to comply with formatting requirements when filing briefs with this court 

may result in the imposition of sanctions. See NRAP 3C(n). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 

. 

. „ ,:;11
#### Harry Marion Sims, Plaintiff, v. United States Trust Company, Defendant.

Judgment affirmed.
From: Pat_Lead@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:06:39 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,

Patrick Sefton

Fort Wayne, IN 46850
y

MANDATE

Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-15-00175-CV

MANOWAR AZIZ AND AB TRANSPORT AND TRUCKING, Appellants

V.

ABDUL WARIS, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF PROGRESSIVE 

TRUCKING, INC., AS SHAREHOLDER, Appellee

Appeal from 133rd Judicial District Court of Harris County (Tr. Ct. No. 2013-09984).

TO THE 133RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, 

GREETINGS:

Before this Court, on the 27th day of August 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise 

or to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by 

the trial court on December 19, 2014. After due 

consideration, the Court grants the motion to dismiss the 

appeal filed by the appellee. Accordingly, the Court

dismisses the appeal.

The Court orders that costs be taxed against appellant.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below 

for observance.

Judgment rendered August 27, 2015.

Per curiam opinion delivered by panel consisting of Chief 

Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Massengale.
WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in 

this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

November 6, 2015 

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

 CLERK OF THE COURT
From: john@nationsgraphics.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Do NOT overstep you bounds

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:22:52 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,

John Pena

Kansas City, MO 64137
From: Elizabeth Lee

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: coverage of preventive care under the new health care law,

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:29:05 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: tcamomsally@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:39:17 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,

Sally Anderson

Colorado Springs, CO 80921
NUMBER 13-09-00133-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

PENNY CHAMBLESS, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 94th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Vela 

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Penny Chambless, by and through her attorney, has filed a motion to

dismiss her appeal because she no longer desires to prosecute it. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.2(a). Without passing on the merits of the case, we grant the motion to dismiss

pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) and dismiss the appeal. Having
2

dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained,

and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

Memorandum Opinion delivered and 

filed this 20th day of August, 2009.
No. 368.

#### Retail Clerks International Association, Local 1625, AFL-CIO, et al. *v.*Schermerhorn et al.

*S. G. Lippman, Tim L. Bornstein, Russell Specter*and *Claude Pepper*for petitioners.

*Bernard B. Weksler*for respondents.

Supreme Court of Florida. Certiorari granted.
From: bsanford5931@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

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

Bill Sanford

Stockton, CA 95210