alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: MOM2KRK@YAHOO.COM

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:40:36 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,

Mary-Lynne Scott

Molino, FL 32577
From: bmoore@mmci.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:51:53 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,

Brandon Moore

Princeville, IL 61559
#### Joseph Falker v. The New York, West Shore and Buffalo Railway Company.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.

Follett, J., not sitting.
From: nobritsch@bis.midco.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:23:31 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,

Nancy Obritsch

Bismarck, ND 58503
From: NCTide@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

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

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

David Shubert

Hickory, NC 28602
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 8, 2010

d0908 

# Order

September 8, 2010

141468 & (16)

GLENN WILHELMI and SHERRI WILHELMI, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v SC: 141468 COA: 297931 Macomb CC: 2 008-004167-NI MARK ANTHONY BRADFORD and J & H TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The application for leave to ap peal the June 11, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we ar e not persuaded that the question presented should now be reviewed by this Court.
No. 60969.

protests 74951-K, etc. (New York).

#### Sack-Bihovsky Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of kidskin plates the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Kung Chen Fur Corpn.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 266, C. D. 1480) or *Prime Fur Corp.*v. *United States*(37 Cust. Ct. 83, C. D. 1802) and lambskin plates similar to those the subject of *A. S. Gold & Bro., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 120, C. D. 1643) or C. D. 1802, *supra,*the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Mollison, J.,

dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinions in C. D. 1480 and C. D. 1643, *supra.*
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAssessment of Corona/Arcing Hazard for Electron Beam Welding in Space Shuttle Bay at LEO for ISWE: Test ResultsTest welds were made in argon over a range of pressures from 10-5 to 10-3 torr (the latter pressure an order of magnitude above pressures anticipated in the space shuttle bay during welding) with and without plasma on 304 stainless steel, 6Al-4V titanium, and 5456 aluminum in search of any possible unwanted electrical discharges. Only a faint steady glow of beam-excited atoms around the electron beam and sometimes extending out into the vacuum chamber was observed. No signs of current spiking or of any potentially dangerous electrical discharge were found.Document ID19970005301Acquisition SourceMarshall Space Flight CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsNunes, A. C., Jr.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, AL United States)*Russell, C.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, AL United States)*Vaughn, J.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, AL United States)*Stocks, C.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, AL United States)*ODell, D.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, AL United States)*Bhat, B.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, AL United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateNovember 1, 1996Subject CategoryMechanical EngineeringReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-108525NAS 1.15:108525Accession Number97N13227Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970005301.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
From: Patricia Smothers

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Cc: Patricia Smothers

Subject: Religious exemption to be forced on employees

Date: Friday, August 12, 2011 5:18:50 PM

Dear Members of the HHS team;

The religious exemption that would be granted to employers that disagree with the insurance coverage

to be provided to female employees is a dangerous and anti-American exemption.

An employer choosing his or her religious values to be forced on their employees insurance coverage

most certainly has no respect for the religious beliefs of others.

It would show calloused disregard for an employees right to religious freedom and privacy.

What if the employer does not believe in the right to blood transfusions? believes in prayer rather

than medicine? the rythm method of birth control? births underwater?

Do they have the right to force all their employees to follow their own personal beliefs?

Imposing this type of exemption is detrimental to American ideals.

Most sincerely,

Patricia Smothers
From: mspjohn@charter.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:15:57 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,

Denise Glisson

Riverside, CA 92509
From: thealhorns@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:50:14 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,

Tina Alhorn

Huntsville, AL 35802
#### G. A. Boyd, appellee, v. Henry Francisco, appellant.

Filed June 6, 1921.

No. 21652.

Municipal Corporations: Violation of Ordinance: Judgment: Review. Where the proceedings in a prosecution for the violation of a village ordinance are conducted properly in all respects except that the police judge mistakenly entitled the case upon his docket as if the complaining witness instead of the state were plaintiff, proceedings to review the judgment in the district court must he conducted in the manner provided hy the statute for reviewing’ such prosecutions.

*250Appeal from the district court for Antelope county: Anson A. Welch, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*E. D. EUbonrn,*for appellant.

*O. A. Williams, contra.*

Letton, J.

This case originated in the police court of Royal, Antelope county, and was a complaint under an ordinance of that village charging that Henry Francisco did “operate and conduct for hire * * * and public use, three pool and one billiard table, without having first obtained * * a license,” in his place of business in that village. The defendant was convicted and fined in the sum of $100. The case was taken by petition in error to the district court, and that court dismissed the error proceedings.

Two errors are assigned: First, that the complaint does not state a cause of action; second, that the prosecution was not carried on by. the state, but by a private person.

The record shows that the proceedings in police court were carried on regularly in all respects. A sufficient complaint was filed, the accused arrested, and trial had as is usual in such prosecutions. The police judge, however, docketed the proceedings as “G. A. Boyd, plaintiff, v. Henry Francisco, defendant.” The record recites: “Evidence was introduced by the statej but no evidence was offered by the defendant. On consideration of the evidence the court finds the defendant guilty as he is charged in the complaint” — and a fine was imposed in proper form. There was no judgment in favor of Boyd, and it is apparent that the state was the real plaintiff.

The district court found “that there is no judgment shown by the record in favor of defendant in error, and that there are no errors complained of by the plaintiff in error, shown by the record,” and dismissed the proceedings.

*251A motion was made about two months afterwards, but Avhether at the same term of court or not is not- shown, to set aside the order dismissing the error proceedings, and to docket the case and treat it as an appeal. This motion Avas overruled. The proceedings in error were a nullity and were properly dismissed. If considered as an appeal, it was taken too late, and sufficient cause was not shown for the failure to perfect it in time. The motion was properly overruled. We have examined the complaint and find it sufficient.

Affirmed.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: ChiefJoseph Mountain quadrangle, Oregon: 7.5 minute series (topographic)**
 
2014 | 2015
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.28/6:45117-C 3/
Item Number:0080-G-04 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000978922
 
July 24, 2018
EXHIBIT 23

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


The Board of Directors of
Star Technologies, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(No. 33-84184, No. 33-42042 and No. 2-97518) on Forms S-8 of Star
Technologies, Inc. of our report dated February 13, 1998, relating to the
consolidated statements of financial position of Star Technologies, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and March 31, 1997, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows
for the nine months ended December 31, 1997 and each of the years in the
two-year period ended March 31, 1997, which report appears in the transition
report for the period April 1, 1997 to December 31, 1997 on Form 10-K of Star
Technologies, Inc.



                                        KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP



McLean, Virginia
March 31, 1998
#### GUARANTEE TITLE & TRUST CO. v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF HUNTINGDON et al. FIRST NAT. BANK OF HUNTINGDON et al. v. GUARANTEE TITLE & TRUST CO.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

December 18, 1911.)

No. 1,439.

On reargument.

Affirmed.

For former opinion, see, 185 Fed. 373, 107 C. C. A. 429.

Before GRAY, BUFFINGTON, and LANNING, Circuit Judges.

*53PER CURIAM.

These causes having been reargued and duly considered, the court finds no cause for modifying its opinion published in 185 Fed. 373, 107 C. C. A. 429. Therefore, as to the claim of the American Car & Foundry Company, concerning which the title to the steel car was adjudged to it by the District Court, the order of the District Court will be reversed, and the title to the steel car will be adjudged to the Guarantee Title & Trust Company, trustee of the bankrupt. As to the claim of the First National Bank of Huntingdon for the derrick and equipment, which the District Court adjudged to the bank, the order will be reversed, and title will be adjudged to the said Guarantee Title & Trust Company, trustee of the bankrupt. And as to the claim of the First National Bank of Huntingdon for the sum of S3,016, collected by the trustee of the bankrupt from the United States and adjudged by the District Court to belong to the trustee of the bankrupt, the order will be affirmed.