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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:08:44 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,

Sandralea James

Lehigh Acres, FL 33974
From: steveshiflet@conniemaxwell.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:17:48 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,

Steve Shiflet

Greenwood, SC 29649
From: oma-julie@charter.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:07:23 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,

Julia Abernathy

Belleville, IL 62221
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 3, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-30838

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PHILLIP K. SIAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 99-CR-60034-1

 

Before GARWOOD, EMILIO M. GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Philip K. Sias, federal prisoner # 10304-035, was convicted of

using and carrying a firearm during the commission of a violent

crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924, and this court affirmed his

conviction and sentence. United States v. Sias, 227 F.3d 244 (5th

Cir. Sept. 8, 2000). Sias now appeals the July 23, 2002, denial of

his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion filed July 16, 2002. After we
2

remanded to the district court for a finding (to be returned to

this court) on the timeliness of the notice of appeal from the July

23, 2002 order, Fed. R. App. P. 26 was amended to provide

additional days for a notice of appeal. We need not decide whether

it is “just and practicable” to apply the new rule to the instant

case. See FED. R. APP. P., ORDER OF APRIL 29, 2002. Regardless of the

timeliness of the notice of appeal, Sias’s appeal is dismissed

because it is frivolous. See United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d

309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000).

Sias argues that (1) his plea agreement may have been breached

by the court’s decision to upwardly depart in arriving at his

sentence and (2) the court failed to give notice of and

justification for its upward departure. These arguments are not

cognizable in an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion as that motion is

used only to raise an issue of the retroactive application of a

subsequently lowered sentencing range. See United States v. Shaw,

30 F.3d 26, 29 (5th Cir. 1994). Sias also argues that Amendment

598 to the Sentencing Guidelines provides for a reduction in his

sentence. Amendment 598 (effective November 1, 2000) is not listed

in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 and therefore may not be applied retroactively

on Sias’s motion. See United States v. Drath, 89 F.3d 216, 218

(5th Cir. 1996).

Sias’s appeal is frivolous because it lacks an arguable basis

in law or fact. See McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin Dist.
3

1, 486 U.S. 429, 439-40 & n.10 (1985). Accordingly, the appeal is

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 1897

MAJOR FLEMING , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. SHAWN T. RIVARD, Virginia State Police; VINCE J. MACANO, Virginia State Police; VIRGINIA STATE POLICE AVIATION UNITS , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 3:22

- cv - 00210

- JAG )

Submitted : April 20, 2023 Decided: April 24, 2023

Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Major Fleming, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Hensley , OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA , Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1897 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/24/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Major Fleming appeals the district court’s order dismissing Fleming’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint . On appeal, w e confine our review to the issues raised in the informal
brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Fleming ’ s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order.
See Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”) . Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We deny Fl eming’s
motion to sea l

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-1897 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/24/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
(R.D. 11481)

#### Parsons & Whittemore, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. M-1306.

(Decided January 30, 1968)

*Sharp, Bolter é Hutchison*ior the plaintiff.

*Edwin L. Weisl, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, et seq.).

> *7722. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

> 3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

> 4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

> 5. That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

> 6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

> 7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

> 8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
From: hkcjhc@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:14:30 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,

KIM CRITZ

Fort Collins, CO 80525
No. 40, Misc.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*William I. Siegel*for respondent.

#### Wolochen *v.*New York.

Court of Appeals of New York. Certiorari denied.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### International Trade Commission

# AGENCY:

United States International Trade Commission.

# ACTION:

Appointment of individuals to serve as members of performance review board.

# DATES:

*Applicable Date:*                         September 13, 2023.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eric Mozie, Director of Human Resources, or Ronald Johnson, Deputy Director of Human Resources, U.S. International Trade Commission (202) 205-2651.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Chairman of the U.S. International Trade Commission has appointed the following individuals to serve on the Commission's Performance Review Board (PRB):

Chair of the PRB: Commissioner Amy Karpel

Vice-Chair of the PRB: Commissioner Randolph Stayin

Member—John Ascienzo

Member—Dominic Bianchi

Member—Nannette Christ

Member—Catherine DeFilippo

Member—Katie Higginbothom

Member—Margaret Macdonald

Member—William Powers

Member—Keith Vaughn 

                    This notice is published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to the requirement of 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting our TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.                

By order of the Chairman.

Issued: September 14, 2023.

Katherine Hiner,

Supervisory Attorney.

[FR Doc. 2023-20280 Filed 9-18-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
No. 63753.

protest 59/18382 (New York).

#### Ross Products, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of glass ornamental novelties similar in all material re*329;spects to those the subject of Abstract 62984, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
H. Res. 1418 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 24 (legislative day, September 23), 2008. 

Whereas Michael Phelps swam in 17 races over the course of 

9 days in the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympic Games and 

surpassed Olympic icon Mark Spitz by becoming the only 

athlete to win 8 gold medals in a single Olympics; 

Whereas Michael Phelps set 7 world records and 8 Olympic 

records in 8 events in those Olympic Games; 

Whereas Michael Phelps is one of the most highly decorated 

Olympians ever, with 14 gold medals and 2 bronze medals over his Olympic career; 

Whereas as a member of the United States men’s relay swim 

teams, Michael Phelps helped set world records and win 

3 gold medals for the United States 2008 Olympic swim 

team; and 

Whereas Michael Phelps epitomized the Olympic spirit by 

demonstrating patriotism, strength, and humility 

throughout the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympic Games: 

Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) congratulates Michael Phelps of Baltimore, 

Maryland, for his outstanding athletic achievements during the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympic Games, achieve-
2 

•HRES 1418 EH 

ments that set him apart as one of the most highly decorated and accomplished Olympic athletes in world history; 

(2) recognizes the achievements of Michael Phelps 

and all the members of the United States 2008 Olympic 

swim team; and 

(3) directs the Clerk of the House of Representatives to transmit a copy of this resolution to Michael 

Phelps; Mark Schubert, head coach of the United States 

2008 Olympic swim team; and Bob Bowman, chief executive officer of the North Baltimore Aquatic Club and 

assistant coach of the United States 2008 Olympic swim 

team for appropriate display. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 488 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         July 18, 2002.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R 5120) making appropriations for the Treasury Department, the United 
States Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, and certain 
Independent Agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and for 
other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate 
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the bill for 
failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except as follows: 
beginning with ``Provided'' on page 12, line 19, through ``2003'' on line 23; 
beginning with ``Provided'' on page 74, line 15, through ``law'' on line 25; 
page 81, line 22, through page 82, line 7; page 102, line 19, through page 103, 
line 10. Where points of order are waived against part of a paragraph, points of 
order against a provision in another part of such paragraph may be made only 
against such provision and not against the entire paragraph. The Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole shall accord priority in recognition to Representative 
Goss of Florida or his designee to offer the amendment printed in the report of 
the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, which may be offered only 
at the appropriate point in reading of the bill, shall be considered as read, 
and shall not be subject to amendment. All points of order against the amendment 
printed in the report are waived. Except as otherwise specified in this 
resolution, during consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of 
whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the 
portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of 
rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the conclusion 
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```