alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: dkallemeyn@avc.edu

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:47:25 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,

Dennis Kallemeyn

Lancaster, CA 93536
#### The People of the State of New York *ex rel.*The Rome, Watertown and Ogdensburg Railroad Company, Appellants, v. Parley Haupt and others, Assessors, etc., of the Town of Somerset, Niagara county, Respondents. Same, Appellants, v. Same, Respondents. Same, Appellants, v. Peter Smoyer and others, as Assessors of the Town of Wilson, Respondents. Same v. Same.

Order in each case affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by

Bradley, J.
II

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 134

To ban the importation of large capacity ammunition feeding

devices.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 22, 2001

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To ban the importation of large capacity ammunition feeding

devices.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Large Capacity Ammu5 nition Magazine Import Ban Act of 2001’’.
2

•S 134 IS

1 SEC. 2. BAN ON IMPORTING LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNI2 TION FEEDING DEVICES.

3 Section 922(w) of title 18, United States Code, is

4 amended—

5 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘(1) Except as

6 provided in paragraph (2)’’ and inserting ‘‘(1)(A)

7 Except as provided in subparagraph (B)’’;

8 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘(2) Para9 graph (1)’’ and inserting ‘‘(B) Subparagraph (A)’’;

10 (3) by inserting before paragraph (3) the fol11 lowing new paragraph:

12 ‘‘(2) It shall be unlawful for any person to import

13 a large capacity ammunition feeding device.’’; and

14 (4) in paragraph (4)—

15 (A) by striking ‘‘(1)’’ each place it appears

16 and inserting ‘‘(1)(A)’’; and

17 (B) by striking ‘‘(2)’’ and inserting

18 ‘‘(1)(B)’’.

19 SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

20 Section 921(a)(31) of title 18, United States Code,

21 is amended by striking ‘‘manufactured after the date of

22 enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforce23 ment Act of 1994’’.

Æ
From: rchronowski1@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:49:13 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 Chronowski

Crookston, MN 56716
From: bob.tank@poet.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:31:16 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 Tank

Manning, IA 51455
Exhibit 10.3

 

Confidential Treatment Requested Under 17 C.F.R. §§ 200.80(b)(4) and 240-24b-2

 

Statement of Work

 

To the Agreement between RADIUS HEALTH, INC. (“RADIUS”) and LONZA Sales AG dated 16 of October 2007

 

Supplemental analytical services

 


	
Number
    	
 
    	
RDS-001-SC005
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Product Code/Name
    	
 
    	
RDS-001 Abaloparatide
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Description of the proposed change:
    	
 
    	
Manufacturing of an RS solution and supply of 60   extra vials to Vetter. These vials will be produced together with the 60   vials already ordered (PO# 03329)
    
	
Price Agreed
    	
 
    	
[*]€
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Radius
    	
 
    	
Name: Naveen Palwai
    
   Signature: /s/ Naveen Palwai
    	
 
    	
Date : 17 Mar 2016
    
	
Radius
    	
 
    	
Name: Wajiha Khan
    
   Signature: /s/ Wajiha Khan
    	
 
    	
Date : March 17, 2016
    
	
Lonza Sales AG
    	
 
    	
Name : Paul Tastenhoye
    
   Signature : /s/ Paul Tastenhoye
    	
 
    	
Date: 17/03/2016
    
	
Lonza Sales AG
    	
 
    	
Name : Frederique Mutterer
    
   Signature : /s/ Frederique Mutterer
    	
 
    	
Date : 17/03/2016
    




 

Additional notes: /

 




[*] Certain information in this document has been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to the omitted portions.

 

1











 

Confidential Treatment Requested Under 17 C.F.R. §§ 200.80(b)(4) and 240-24b-2

 

Detailed description of the proposed change

 

Manufacturing of an RS solution and supply of 60 extra vials to Vetter. These vials will be produced together with the 60 vials already ordered (PO# 03329)

 

Timescale

 

By mid-May.

 

Price and Terms of Payment

 

1.      Price

 

·                  [*]€

 

2.      Payment

 

100% upon completion

 

oooOOOooo

 




[*] Certain information in this document has been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to the omitted portions.

 

2
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cellcom I Corp. on Form 10-KSB for
the year ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David A. Obal, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1. The Report complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.


Date: March 16, 2007                    By: /s/ David A. Obal
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            David A. Obal
                                            Chief Financial Officer


                                       23
From: deecil@q.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:11:48 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,

Diana Cecil

Vancouver, WA 98684
Date: August, 28, 2015

From: Aerovue Imagery, LLC

Subj: Additional Information Request (FAA-2015-0961)

 UAV Specifications Information

AEROVUE IMAGERY UAV BASIC SPECIFICATIONS

Manufacturer/Model/Type Dimensions inchs

Aircraft Weight 

kg/lb

Max Payload 

kg/lb

Max Operating Wgt 

kg/lb

Max Operating 

Time

DJI/ S1000/ Octocopter 41.15 Diagonal W 4.2/9.25 6.8/15.0 11.0/24.25 15mins

DJI/ Inspire/Quadcopter 11.75x17.25x17.75 2.9/6.4 Integrated 2.9/6.4 18mins

Yuneec/Q500 Typhoon/Quadcopter 8.3x16x16 1.13/2.5 Integrated 1.7/3.75 25mins
#### Lovina Somers, as Administratrix of Percival L. Somers, Deceased, Appellant, v. The Cedar Point Iron Company, Respondent.

Jiidgmeut affirmed, with costs. Opinion’ by

Learned, P. J.
**COMPUCOMSYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES**

 

**Exhibit 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

The Board of Directors 

CompuCom Systems, Inc.: 

 

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No. 33-2304, No. 33-30175, No. 33-30056, No. 33-39914, No.33-43275, No. 33-63307, No. 33-63309, No. 33-76832, No. 33-85268, No. 333-58623, No. 333-69051, No. 333-84559, No. 333-48846, No. 333-48904, No. 333-69043, and No. 333-91350) on Form S-8 and the Registration Statements (No. 33-43367, No. 33-47002,No. 33-64341, No. 33-78746, No. 33-78756 and No. 333-12609) on Form S-3 of CompuCom Systems, Inc. of our report dated January 29, 2003, related to the consolidated balance sheets of CompuCom Systems, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002 and2001, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2002, which report appears in the December 31, 2002 annual report on Form 10-Kof CompuCom Systems, Inc. Our report on the consolidated financial statements refers to the adoption of the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets”, in 2002. 

 

KPMG LLP 

 

Dallas, Texas 

April 29, 2003
From: davies5009@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:01:49 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,

margaret davies

Garden City, ID 83714
From: cloakof3@live.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:06:45 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,

Linda Williams

Hugoton, KS 67951
```

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 172 (Thursday, September 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 61598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19287]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2023-N-2607]

Issuance of Priority Review Voucher; Rare Pediatric Disease 
Product

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the 
issuance of a priority review voucher to the sponsor of a rare 
pediatric disease product application. The Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) authorizes FDA to award priority review 
vouchers to sponsors of approved rare pediatric disease product 
applications that meet certain criteria. FDA is required to publish 
notice of the award of the priority review voucher. FDA has determined 
that VEOPOZ (pozelimab-bbfg), manufactured by Regeneron 
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., meets the criteria for a priority review 
voucher.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cathryn Lee, Center for Drug 
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New 
Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-1394, email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA is announcing the issuance of a priority 
review voucher to the sponsor of an approved rare pediatric disease 
product application. Under section 529 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 
360ff), FDA will award priority review vouchers to sponsors of approved 
rare pediatric disease product applications that meet certain criteria. 
FDA has determined that VEOPOZ (pozelimab-bbfg), approved on August 18, 
2023, and manufactured by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., meets the 
criteria for a priority review voucher. VEOPOZ (pozelimab-bbfg) 
injection is indicated for the treatment of adult and pediatric 
patients 1 year of age and older with CD55-deficient protein-losing 
enteropathy (PLE), also known as CHAPLE disease.
    For further information about the Rare Pediatric Disease Priority 
Review Voucher Program and for a link to the full text of section 529 
of the FD&C Act, go to https://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/DevelopingProductsforRareDiseasesConditions/RarePediatricDiseasePriorityVoucherProgram/default.htm. For further 
information about VEOPOZ (pozelimab-bbfg), go to the ``Drugs@FDA'' 
website at https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/.

    Dated: September 1, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-19287 Filed 9-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
```
Before the Second Division,

November 5, 1964

No. 68870.

#### J. M. Altieri *v.*United States,

protests 62/6581 and 62/18784 (San Juan).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of copper plates similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 67410, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Yagoub M. MOHAMED, a/k/a Mohammed A. Yagoub, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-6124.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 18, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 23, 2005.

Yagoub M. Mohamed, Appellant pro se. Brian Ronald Hood, Assistant United States Attorney, Gregg Robert Nivala, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia; Michael Calvin Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Yagoub M. Mohamed appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reopen the time to file an appeal of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See United States v. Mohamed,*Nos. CR-01-177; CA-03-58-3 (E.D.Va. Jan. 11, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*