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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:51:08 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,

Marilyn Buresh

Omaha, NE 68130
From: n2wod7@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:43:55 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,

Michael Gadarowski

Cynthiana, KY 41031
From: Mark@scdevelopment.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:28:40 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Mark Conzelman

Santa Ana, CA 92705
From: dcnkcsmith@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:27:26 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 smith

Salina, KS 67401
[No. 2445.]

#### Balfe v. Hanley.

1. Judgments — Payment—Appeal Bond — Presumption.

In an action upon an appeal bond, evidence showing the issuance and return unsatisfied of an execution upon the judgment, is presumptive proof of nonpayment of the judgment.

2. Appellate Practice — Assignments of Error.

Questions not presented by the assignments of error will -■not be considered although argued in appellant’s brief. s3. Pleading — Amendment—Appellate Practice.

Where a demurrer was filed to a complaint and counsel signed a written stipulation which in effect amended the complaint wherein it was said to be defective and the case was tried as though the amendment was in and traversed, it is too late to urge on appeal that the amendment was not formally made.

*Appeal from the District Court of Teller County.*

Messrs. Temple & Crump, for appellant.

Mr. V. H. Miller, for appellee.

GrUNTER, J.

Action upon appeal bond by appellee, obligee therein, judgment in her favor and therefrom this appeal.

It is said proof of the nonpayment of the judgment named in the condition of the bond was essential ' to a recovery thereon, that such proof was wanting.

The evidence showed the issuance and return *252unsatisfied of an execution upon the judgment; this was presumptive proof of the nonpayment thereof. —Freeman on Execution, 3d ed., § 365.

Further, the present owner of the judgment, the assignee of appellee, testified to its nonpayment. There was no conflicting evidence. The proof of nonpayment was sufficient. This is the only question assigned and argued as error.

Judgment affirmed.

*Affirmed.*

*Per Curiam.*— The court in the original opinion herein did not pass upon two of the questions raised by appellant’s brief. This is urged as ground for a rehearing. A sufficient reason for such action of the court is, neither of the questions was presented by the assignments of error.

There is no merit, however, in either of the questions. The one is that the complaint failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Such objection was raised below by demurrer. Thereupon counsel signed a written stipulation which in effect amended the complaint wherein it was said to be defective. Thereafter the case was tried upon the theory that such amendment was in and that the matter thereby presented was traversed. This being true, it is too láte to urge here that the amendment was not formally made.

The second question went to an instruction as to a verdict by three-fourths of the jury, and is the same as that passed upon by this court, and held to be without merit in *Adams Express Company v. Aldrich, ante, 74,*and *Fitzhugh v. Brown, ante,*236.

Petition for rehearing

*Denied.*
From: Alan M. Gross

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: No expanded religious exemption!

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 5:58:01 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.
Order entered July 16 , 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 20

- 01084

- CV

ALFREDO SANCHEZ AND FERMIN LOPEZ , Appellant s

V.

LUIS TORRES , Appellee

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 19

- 03653

O RDER

Before the Court is appellants’ July 14, 2021 fourth motion for an extension

of time to file their brief on the merit s. 1 We DENY the motion.

On the Court’s own mo tion, we ORDER appellants to file their brief on or

before July 26, 2021 . We caution appellants that failure to file their brief by the
deadline will result in dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution

. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1).

/s/ CRAIG SMI TH JUSTICE

1 Appellants mistakenly label their motion as their third motion.
Before the Second Division,

February 5, 1959

No. 62722.

#### W. C. Sullivan & Company *v.*United States,

protest 306866-K/8740 (Chicago).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the photo frames in issue are household utensils, composed in chief value of brass, not plated with platinum, gold, or silver, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
II

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1470

To establish a demonstration program for school dropout prevention.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 26, 2001

Mr. SMITH of Oregon introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

A BILL

To establish a demonstration program for school dropout

prevention.

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 ‘‘Dropout Reduction

5 Outreach Program Act of 2001’’ or the ‘‘DROP Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. SCHOOL DROPOUT PREVENTION.

7 (a) GRANTS AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary of Edu8 cation is authorized to carry out a demonstration program

9 under which the Secretary awards grants to not less than

10 2 States to enable the States—
2

•S 1470 IS

1 (1) to provide targeted assistance to secondary

2 school and middle school students who are at risk of

3 high school dropout through specialized professional

4 development opportunities for guidance counselors,

5 teachers or administrators who work with such stu6 dents at schools that have among the highest school

7 dropout rates in the State based on data for the 3

8 academic years preceding the academic year for

9 which the grant is awarded, to determine if the

10 school dropout rates decrease as a result of the as11 sistance;

12 (2) to implement the hiring of additional guid13 ance counselors who have been trained to work with

14 students at high risk for dropping out to work with

15 such students; and

16 (3) to implement school and State program

17 evaluation strategies for the purpose of dissemi18 nating best practices on effective school-based drop19 out prevention strategies.

20 (b) CRITERIA FOR SELECTION.—To be eligible to re21 ceive a grant under this section, a State shall have pro22 vided the National Center for Education Statistics with

23 not less than 3 contiguous years of State and school drop24 out data that are in compliance with the common core

25 data standards of the National Center for Education Sta-
3

•S 1470 IS

1 tistics, in order to ensure data-based decisionmaking in

2 the awarding of such grants.

3 (c) EVALUATION AND REPORT.—The Secretary of

4 Education shall evaluate the activities assisted under this

5 section and transmit to Congress a report regarding the

6 results of the evaluation.

7 (d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There

8 are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section

9 $3,333,333 for each of the fiscal years 2002, 2003, and

10 2004.

Æ
#### Thomas J. Rich, Jr., as Administrator, etc., Appellant, v. Henry W. Hauxhurst, Respondent.

Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion bv

Barnard. P. J.
<PAGE>
 
EXHIBIT 11.2

                              PAMECO CORPORATION

          COMPUTATION OF HISTORICAL SUPPLEMENTAL NET INCOME PER SHARE

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 

                                                             Three Months Ended
                                                                 May 31
                                                                  1997
                                                            -----------------
<S>                                                         <C> 
Primary and fully diluted:
     Weighted average common stock and common
     stock equivalents outstanding during the 
     period..................................                          8,585


Effect of common stock equivalents issued 
     subsequent to March 26, 1996, computed
     in accordance with the treasury stock method
     as required by the SEC (1)..............                            330
                                                            -----------------

              Total                                                    8,915
                                                            =================

Net Income                                                    $        1,015
Plus: Reduction in interest expense from repayment 
      of long-term notes payable,net of income taxes(2)                  621
                                                            -----------------
Net Income                                                    $        1,636
                                                            =================

Net income per share of common stock                          $         0.18
                                                            =================
</TABLE> 

(1)  Pursuant to Securities and Exchange Commission Staff Accounting Bulletin
     No. 83, Common stock equivalents issued at prices below the Initial Public
     Offering price per share of $14 ("cheap stock") during the twelve month
     period immediately preceding the initial filing date of the Company's
     Registration Statement for its Initial Public Offering have been included
     as outstanding for all periods presented prior to the Initial Public
     Offering.

(2)  Historical supplemental net income per share reflects the number of shares
     of common stock issued upon consummation of the Initial Public Offering
     used to repay $44.2 million in current and long term debt as if the
     issuance had occurred at the beginning of the period (or date of issuance
     of notes payable, if later) and the related reduction in interest expense.
Exhibit 12.1
 NII HOLDINGS, INC.
STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS
TO FIXED CHARGES
(dollars in thousands)
 Three Months EndedSeptember 30,2008
    
    2007Income from continuing operations before income tax
    
    $
    129,292
    
    
    $
    124,951Add:Fixed charges
    
    
    59,412
    
    
    
    46,958Amortization of capitalized interest
    
    
    1,589
    
    
    
    1,327Less:Interest capitalized
    
    
    2,229
    
    
    
    1,080Equity in (losses) gains of unconsolidated affiliates
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Losses attributable to minority interests
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Earnings as adjusted
    
    $
    188,064
    
    
    $
    172,156Fixed charges:Interest expense on indebtedness (including
amortization of
debt expense and discount)
    
    $
    42,466
    
    
    $
    35,610Interest capitalized
    
    
    2,229
    
    
    
    1,080Portion of rent expense representative of interest (30%)
    
    
    14,717
    
    
    
    10,268Fixed charges
    
    $
    59,412
    
    
    $
    46,958Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    3.17
    
    
    
    3.67Deficiency of earnings to cover fixed charges
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    
From: chashuck@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:18:35 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,

Charles Huckabee

Greenwood, LA 71033
September 1, 2016 

Mr. Stephen Gowdy 

Gowdy Brothers Aerospace, LLC 

Consultant for Kilner Aerial, LLC 

8170 Old Carriage Court North 

Shakopee, MN 55379 

Re: FAA-2016-3366 

Dear Mr. Gowdy: 

This letter is to provide notification that we have reviewed your petition for exemption, and 

have determined that we will continue to process your petition. 

As referenced in the June 22, 2016, letter posted to your docket at www.regulations.gov, we 

are reviewing pending Section 333 petitions to determine if the recently-issued regulation, 

Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 107 (www.faa.gov/uas) will satisfy your request. We have determined that 

your request requires further regulatory relief (Tier 3), and we will continue working on your 

petition for exemption. 

We have found that your petition, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, we will 

publish a summary of your petition in the Federal Register for public comments, if we have 

not done so already. 

We will advise you of the agency’s final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you 

have any questions regarding your petition, please contact me at 333exemptions@faa.gov. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst