alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: hpdawson@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:11:05 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,

Peggy Dawson

Louisville, KY 40205
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED March 14, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40387 Summary Calendar

CHARLES FRANKLIN IRELAND, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus DOUG DRETKE; SANDRA BALDWIN, Correctional Officer; JOHN DOE, Correctional Officer, Beto 1; Jane Doe, Correctional Officer, Beto 1; UNIDENTIFIED UNIDENTIFIED, Officer of Gang Intelligence, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:05-CV-171

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Charles Franklin Ireland, Texas prisoner # 506419, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Ireland filed an untimely Step 1 grievance and did not attempt to file a Step 2 grievance. Ireland’s untimely Step 1 grievance does not excuse his failure to exhaust the prison grievance system. See Days v. Johnson , 322 F.3d 863, 866-67 (5th Cir. 2003).No. 06-40387 -2- Ireland argues that he sufficiently exhausted his administrative remedies because he filed his Step 1 grievance while in the prison infirmary, which did not have a grievance box, by giving it to a nurse. Because Ireland did not raise this argument in the district court, we do not consider it. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co. , 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999); see also Stewart Glass & Mirror, Inc. v. U.S. Auto Glass Discount Ctrs., Inc. , 200 F.3d 307, 316-17 (5th Cir. 2000). We also do not consider Ireland’s argument, raised for the first time in his reply brief, that the district court erroneously denied his request for the appointment of counsel. See Wallace v. County of Comal , 400 F.3d 284, 292 (5th Cir. 2005). The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
From: leavelle@mc.edu

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:01:48 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. I teach at a religiously affiliated college and it is not clear to me that we

would have the option of exercising our freedom of religion and free association inf we are mandated to

include options that violate our religious beliefs. 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,

Tommy Leavelle

Clinton, MS 39058
From: sewgberry@juno.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:43:32 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,

George Berry

Sewickley, PA 15143
#### Isaac Strauss Respondent, v. William Heyenga, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costa. Opinion by

Macomber, J.
From: djstephens49@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:00:45 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,

David Stephens

Cincinnati, OH 45241
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
COMPANY'S  UNAUDITED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1999
AND  IS  QUALIFIED  IN  ITS  ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       71422 
<SECURITIES>                                  8219 
<RECEIVABLES>                               162969 
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            235891 
<PP&E>                                      121957 
<DEPRECIATION>                             (119970)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              264158 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       389611 
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     10237 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (426930)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                264158 
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            198860 
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               200450 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              4396 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           13347 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               2872 
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (800)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           2072 
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                  2072 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0
        

</TABLE>
No. 465.

#### Beach, alias Hickey, *v.*Oneida National Bank & Trust Co. of Central New York et al.

*William B. Collins*for petitioner.

*G. Edward LaGatta*for Oneida National Bank & Trust Co. of Central New York, and *Donald Spadone*for McMahon, respondents.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Frank H. W. Quin and others, Appellants, v. Francis C. Hill and another, Executors, etc., Respondents.

Part of surrogate’s decree appealed from affirmed, with costs to respondent out of the estate. Opinion by

Dykman, J.
March 25, 1964

No. 68377.

#### George E. Athans Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 62/13325.

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing denied.
From: reginacpa2@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:00:05 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,

Regina Angerame

Bayville, NY 11709
No. 60145.

protests 578437-G, etc. (San Francisco).

#### Jos. Meagher’s Sons et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that 20 percent of the merchandise consists of rags used chiefly for papermaking, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained with respect to said 20 percent of the merchandise.
(R.D. 11469)

#### Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 5992, etc.

*759(Decided on rehearing [R.D. 11370] January 23, 1968)

*Bharretts, Paley, Carter & Blauvelt (Eugene F. Blauvelt*and *Donald W. Paley*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Edwin L. Weisl, Jr,,*Assistant Attorney General *(Bernard J. Bail),*trial attorney) , for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

Plaintiffs moved for a rehearing of the decision and judgment entered herein on October 11, 1967, in *Frank P. Dow Co.,*Inc., *et al.*v. *United States,*59 Cust. Ct. 697, R.D. 11370.

Defendant’s response does not object to the motion “solely for the purpose of entering judgment, in the interests of justice, in accordance with the stipulation attached hereto and made a part hereof.”

The said stipulation, signed by counsel for the respective parties, is as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court as follows :

> 1. That the merchandise covered by the reappraisesment appeals listed in schedule “A” attached hereto, consists of structural shapes, plates and bolts which were appraised on the basis of constructed value as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 and that plaintiff agrees that constructed value is the proper basis of appraisement.

> 2. That the constructed values as defined in said section 402(d) for the imported structural shapes, plates and bolts are as follows:

> Structural shapes - unit invoice prices plus 7.955%

> Plates-unit invoice prices plus 1.973%

> Bolts - unit invoice prices less 5.273%

> 3. That the appeals to reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A” hereto attached and made a part hereof may be submitted on this stipulation, and are limited to the merchandise and the issues described herein and abandoned in all other respects.

Based upon the foregoing, the decision in R.D. 11370 is hereby amended to indicate the following constructed values, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, 91 Treas. Dec. 295, T.D. 54165, for-the imported merchandise:

> Structural shapes-unit invoice prices plus 7.955%

> Plates - “ “ “ “ 1.973%

> Bolts - “ “ “ less 5.273%

An amended judgment will be entered accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC
Form 10-K and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
Effective December 31, 1997, the Company changed its fiscal year end from
March 31st to December 31st.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                              95
<SECURITIES>                                      1117
<RECEIVABLES>                                      652
<ALLOWANCES>                                        22
<INVENTORY>                                         58
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  2160
<PP&E>                                            1706
<DEPRECIATION>                                     931
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    5663
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1588
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          3
<COMMON>                                           214
<OTHER-SE>                                        3858
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      5663
<SALES>                                           1706
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  1706
<CGS>                                              801
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      801
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  3101
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    11
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1552)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1552)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1552)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.08)


</TABLE>
From: Bernie-J@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:13:14 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,

Bernie Jensen

Lake Stevens, WA 98258