alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: betsyhoff2003@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:03:56 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,

Betsy Hoff

Fort Collins, CO 80524
From: Don McKelvey

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: .

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 11:42:53 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.

                                                                                                                Sincerely,                            Don McKelvey,

Glendale, California
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 178 (Friday, September 15, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63575-63576]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20022]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards 
enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
    Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at 
the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of

[[Page 63576]]

the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th 
Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later 
than October 16, 2023.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant 
Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414. 
Comments can also be sent electronically to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7c3f1311111912080f521d0c0c10151f1d081513120f3c1f1415521a0e1e52130e1b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8ecde1e3e3ebe0fafda0effefee2e7edeffae7e1e0fdceede6e7a0e8fceca0e1fce9">[email protected]</span></a>:
    1. Savanna-Thomson Investment, Inc., Savanna, Illinois; to merge 
with Maximum Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire Fidelity 
Bank, both of West Des Moines, Iowa.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Michele Taylor Fennell,
Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2023-20022 Filed 9-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
From: vip_management@q.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:43:56 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,

Brett Myers

Hailey, ID 83333
Exhibit 32.1
                                AEROCENTURY CORP.

                                  CERTIFICATION


In connection with this quarterly report of AeroCentury Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Neal D. Crispin, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of
Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best
of my knowledge:

              (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
              13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 results of
              operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods
              indicated.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


Date: May 12, 2005                  /s/ Neal D. Crispin
                                    --------------------------
                                    Neal D. Crispin
                                    Chief Executive Officer
From: everly575@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:22:48 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,

Evelyn Lobato

Walnut, CA 91789
No. 69808.

protests 63/14033-13630, etc. (Chicago).

#### Gallagher & Ascher Company et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of lock cylinders with keys similar in all *880material respects to those the subject of *Gallagher & Ascher Company*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 141, C.D. 2522), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
H. Res. 139

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

February 8, 2007.

Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are 

hereby, elected to the following standing committees of the 

House of Representatives: 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION: Mr. Brady of 

Pennsylvania, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, Mr. Capuano, 

Mr. Gonzalez, and Mrs. Davis of California. 

COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT: 

Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. Doyle, and 

Mr. Delahunt. 

Attest:

Clerk.
From: rachelsaxx@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: rachelsaxx@hotmail.com

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:26:12 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,

Rachel Sacksteder

Philadelphia, PA 19151
No. 61459.

#### E. T. McDuffie *v.*United States,

protest 313856-K/8904 (Chicago).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

An examination of the official papers showing that the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, the protest was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
From: De Goff and Sherman

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Please support access to preventive care and contraception

Date: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 3:33:48 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.

Sincerely,

Victoria De Goff and family
Department of Defense Comments on 

1, 2, 3-Trimethylbenzene Dose-Response Assessment and Supplemental Informa

Comments submitted by: Chemical Material Risk Management Progam Organization: Department of Defense Date Submitted: 5/23/2012 *Comment categories: Science or methods (S); Editorial, grammar/spelling, clarifications needed (E); or Other (O). Also please indica

conclusions or implementation of the assessment. 

Comment No. 

Section Pages Comment Suggested Action, Revisio

(if necessary) 

1 1.1 

Compared to the first IASD draft of trimethylbenzenes, EPA’s synthesis of the 

toxicological data and integrated summary of information was greatly improved, such that the reader was able to understand basic information to assess each study. 

N/A 

2 1.1, Table 1-2 1-3 

It doesn't seem mathematically possible for the % of lymphocytes to be 79.3 +/- 78% or 84 +/- 78% in a group of 10 rats. Even if 7 rats have 100% lymphocytes and 2 rats have 0% lymphocytes, the 10th rat must have 93% lymphocytes to yield an average of 79.3% lymphocytes; in this group, the SD would only be 41.9% 

Please verify the % lymphocmg/m3 groups of rats. 

3 1.1.3 1-10 

EPA’s consideration of possible “reversibility” of the neurologic effect (Korsak and Rydzynski 1996) is adequately discussed and the rationale for keeping this endpoint more convincing. 

N/A 
We apreciate EPA’s effort to address this 

issue. 

4 1.1.3 1-11 

Compared to the first IASD draft of the TMB document the strengths and limitations of the database are more clearly discussed. 

N/A
From: lbogan@dow.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:18:22 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,

Leonard Bogan

Lansdale, PA 19446
Before The Second Division,

February 3, 1960

No. 63773.

protest 59/10040 (San Francisco).

#### United China *&*Glass Company *v.*United States,

*334Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

At the trial, the official papers were moved in evidence. An examination thereof showing that the collector would now stipulate as to the claim of the importer, the protest was sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax
Credit  Fund VI,  L.P.,  Series 6 (the  "Partnership")  for the  quarters  ended
December  31,  2006,  September  30,  2006 and June 30,  2006 as filed  with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  and
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.,  section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  I, Wilfred N.  Cooper,  Jr.,  President  and Chief
Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the Partnership,
hereby certify that:

1.        The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,  except that the Report
          is a cumulative  report  covering each of the quarters  ended December
          31, September 30 and June 30, 2006; and

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




/s/Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.
-------------------------
Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.
February 15, 2008
From: vickipetrick@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:27:11 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,

Vicki Petrick

, 68132-2407