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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:28:52 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,

Jodie Grandorff

Olympia, WA 98512
#### Littlefield Stove Company, Appellant, *v.*The City of Albany, Respondent.

*Littlefield Stove Co.*v. *City of*Albany, 145 App. Div. 951, affirmed.

(Argued December 11, 1912;

decided December 31, 1912.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered June 28, 1911, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon the report of a referee in an action to recover damages alleged to have been caused by the overflow of water from a public sewer through the negligence of defendant.

*John A. Delehanty*for appellant.

*Arthur L. Andrews*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock, Chase and Collin, JJ.
From: kentsuter@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:30:58 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,

Kent Suter

Lilburn, GA 30047
From: doglover32151@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:11:44 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,

Theresa Burling

Chardon, OH 44024
From: csanchez@stcatchurch.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:55:32 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Catherine Sanchez

Lawndale, CA 90260
From: Robert Padilla

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Religious Employer

Date: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 6:52:36 PM

The current definition of religious employer does not provide true conscience protection for

those committed to preserving life. Healthcare plans should not be forced to violate the moral

and religious convictions of providers or employees in order to participate in the health care

system. Requiring such an unacceptable demand threatens both universal access to health

care and religious freedom of conscience.

Robert Padilla

4705 Whispering Valley Drive

Austin, TX 78727
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                           2,258
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,737
<ALLOWANCES>                                       381
<INVENTORY>                                      7,798
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,173
<PP&E>                                           9,701
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,591
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  22,042
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,554
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           19,846
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,846      
<OTHER-SE>                                     (5,358)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    22,042
<SALES>                                         32,886
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,886
<CGS>                                           19,628
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,189
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,118
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (53)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     32
<INCOME-TAX>                                         5
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 27
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        27
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32(b)**

**ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of WWA Group, Inc. (“Registrant”) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“Report”), I, Digamber Naswa, chief financial officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge: 

(1)     This Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in this Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of 

        operation of the Registrant. 

/s/ Digamber Naswa

Digamber Naswa

Chief Financial Officer

August 15, 2006 

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by Registrant for the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing. 

A signed original of this written statement required by §906 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
From: lizdenihan@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

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

liz denihan

, 3212
From: Soperkenel@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:31:06 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,

Nola Soper

Bucksport, ME 04416
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




Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that
the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 of
Flurida Group, Inc. (the “Company”) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




Flurida
      Group, Inc.Dated:
      April 15, 2010
                  By:
                  /s/ Jianfeng
      DingJianfeng
      DingChief
      Executive Officer





A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Flurida Group, Inc. and will
be retained by Flurida Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
`[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1350 Reported in House (RH)]






                                                 House Calendar No. 250
110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1350

                          [Report No. 110-761]

      Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES



    Mr. Welch of Vermont, from the Committee on Rules, reported the 
  following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and 
                         ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
      Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

    Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time on the legislative 
day of Thursday, July 17, 2008, for the Speaker to entertain motions 
that the House suspend the rules relating to a measure concerning the 
domestic production of oil and natural gas.
                                                 House Calendar No. 250

110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 1350

                          [Report No. 110-761]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

      Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 16, 2008

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed`
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Robert CHARLES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-40877.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided July 12, 2005.

*278Jennifer Bess Lowery, William H. Harris, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Beaumont, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Robert Charles, Lompoc, CA, pro se.

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JONES and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Robert Charles appeals his statutory minimum sentence of five years for possession with intent to distribute more than 500 grams but less than five kilograms of cocaine. *See*21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(B)(ii)(II). He argues that the district court erred in assessing a two-level increase pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(l) on the basis that he possessed a weapon during and in relation to a drug-trafficking offense. The district court applied the § 2Dl.l(b)(l) adjustment because the search of Charles’s vehicle (in which the cocaine was found) revealed the presence of a loaded semiautomatic pistol. Charles has not satisfied the burden of showing a clear improbability that there was a connection between the drugs and the weapon. *See United States v. Marmolejo,*106 F.3d 1213, 1216 (5th Cir.1997); U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment, (n.3). Thus, the district court did not err in applying the two-level adjustment pursuant to § 2D1.1(b)(1).

Charles argues for the first time on appeal that the facts supporting the § 2Dl.l(b)(l) adjustment were neither admitted by him nor proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury, thus the adjustment violated *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). “An appellate court may not cor*279reet an error the defendant failed to raise in the district court unless there is (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (8) that affects substantial rights.” *United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511, 516, 520 (5th Cir. 2005), *petition for cert. filed*(Mar. 31, 2005)(No. 04-9517). Charles cannot satisfy the third prong of the plain error test as he cannot show “that the error must have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings” or undermines confidence in those proceedings. *Id.*at 521 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). After finding that the U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(l) adjustment was applicable, the court sentenced Charles to the minimum sentence required by statute. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the court would have imposed a lower sentence. In fact, the court was bound by statute to sentence Charles to at least five years of imprisonment. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(l)(B)(ii)(II). Thus, Charles cannot demonstrate plain error in the his sentence.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
Before the Second Division,

January 17, 1958

No. 61477.

#### Elna Corp. of America, Inc., and Barian Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 287072-K, 280369-K, and 280542-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of buttonhole cutters in chief value of steel, not plated with platinum, gold, or silver, and not enameled or glazed with vitreous glasses, used chiefly in the household for cutting off buttons and cutting open seams on fabric, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.