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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:51:41 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,

heather muldowney

Schodack Landing, NY 12156
From: joyce.rogers44@yahoo.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,

Joyce Rogers

Caledonia, MI 49316
From: p-dubs@fuse.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:40:56 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Paul Washnock

Independence, KY 41051
From: Caryn Stephens

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 10:50:20 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.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsUncertainties that flight crews and dispatchers must consider when calculating the fuel needed for a flightIn 1993, fuel accounted for approximately 15 percent of an airline's expenses. Fuel consumption increases as fuel reserves increase because of the added weight to the aircraft. Calculating fuel reserves is a function of Federal Aviation Regulations, airline company policy, and factors that impact or are impacted by fuel usage enroute. This research studied how pilots and dispatchers determined the fuel needed for a flight and identified areas where improvements in methods may yield measurable fuel savings by (1) listing the uncertainties that contribute to adding contingency fuel, (2) obtaining the pilots' and dispatchers' perspective on how often each uncertainty occurred, and (3) obtaining pilots' and dispatchers' perspective on the fuel used for each occurrence. This study found that for the majority of the time, pilots felt that dispatchers included enough fuel. As for the uncertainties that flight crews and dispatchers account for, air traffic control accounts for 28% and weather uncertainties account for 58 percent. If improvements can be made in these two areas, a great potential exists to decrease the reserve required, and therefore, fuel usage without jeopardizing safety.Document ID19960042496Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsTrujillo, Anna C.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMay 1, 1996Subject CategoryAir Transportation And SafetyReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:110240NASA-TM-110240Accession Number96N31486Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-64-53-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19960042496.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
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

DWIGHT HICKS

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 908

[ July 13, 2017 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Paul L. Backman

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 11

- 16567CF10A

.

Dwight Hicks, Blountstown, pro se.

No brief filed for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

G ERBER

, C.J., G ROSS and D AMOORGIAN

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2022-2433

_____________________________

TERRANCE HARTLEY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Coleman Lee Robinson, Judge.

January 30, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

BILBREY, WINOKUR, and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Terrance Hartley, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
consolidated  financial  statements of First Robinson Financial  Corporation for
the  quarterly  period  ended June 30, 1999 and is  qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         1,075
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         4,592
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                   0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                   15,381
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           175
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             175
<LOANS>                                       62,211
<ALLOWANCE>                                     (656)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                86,618
<DEPOSITS>                                    70,833
<SHORT-TERM>                                   4,046
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              741
<LONG-TERM>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                           9
<OTHER-SE>                                    10,989
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                86,618
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                1,366
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                244
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               1,610
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               715
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               770
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            840
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                     60
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  705
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  231
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       231
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                     148
<EPS-BASIC>                                   0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0.20
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                  4.09
<LOANS-NON>                                      175
<LOANS-PAST>                                       0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 634
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    (51)
<RECOVERIES>                                      13
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                656
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             656
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            0



</TABLE>
----

----

----

----

| Japan Local Currency Bank Name         | Japan Local Currency Commitment |
|----------------------------------------|---------------------------------|
| The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd. | US $75,000,000                  |

| Total Japan LocalCurrency Commitment: |   | US $75,000,000 |
|---------------------------------------|--------|----------------|

| Japan Local Currency Bank Name    | Applicable Japan Local Currency Lending Office                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
|----------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd. | The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd.,Corporate Banking Division No. 3, Corporate Banking Group7-1, Marunouchi 2-chome, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, JapanAttention:  Mr. Shu Ohsuga(Telephone No.:  03-3240-2512 / 81-3-3240-2512)(Facsimile No.:  03-3240-8885 / 81-3-3240-8885) |

----

----

----
No. 67471.

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 62/12989 (San Diego).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Falcon Sales Company*and *J. J. Murphy & Co.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 129, C.D. 2292), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 429, Misc.

#### Baugus et al. *v.*Florida.

*Joseph P. Manners*for petitioners.

Supreme Court of Florida. 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.                  

###### Department of Veterans Affairs

          - [OMB Control No. 2900-0161]

# AGENCY:

 Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.

# ACTION:

Notice; withdrawal.

# SUMMARY:

                        On Friday, September 15, 2023, the Veterans Benefits Administration (VA), published a notice in the                         **Federal Register**                         announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection Medical Expense Report (VA Form 21P-8416). This notice was published in error; therefore, this document corrects that error by withdrawing this FR notice, document number 2023-19969.                    

# DATES:

As of Friday, September 15, 2023, the FR notice published at 88 FR 63686 on September 15, 2023, is withdrawn.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Maribel Aponte, Office of Enterprise and Integration, Data Governance Analytics (008), 810 Vermont Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20006, (202) 266-4688 or email                         *maribel.aponte@va.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

FR Doc. 2023-19969, published on Friday, September 15, 2023 (88 FR 63686), is withdrawn by this notice.

By direction of the Secretary.

Maribel Aponte,

VA PRA Clearance Officer, Office of Enterprise and Integration/Data Governance Analytics, Department of Veterans Affairs.

[FR Doc. 2023-20318 Filed 9-19-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
From: Cafebarr26@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:31:18 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,

Lorin Barr

Mobile, AL 36693
From: cathyalbertigonzalez@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:13:02 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,

Cathy gonzalez

Haledon, NJ 07508