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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:12:44 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,

Louisa Chiasson

Carmel, IN 46033
No. 64479.

#### International Packers, Ltd., and Williams, Clarke Co. *v.*United States,

protest 59/17900 (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of prepared or preserved pork similar in all material respects to that the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 36, C.D. 2100), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1371 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1371

  Congratulating the Saratoga Race Course as it celebrates its 140th 
                                season.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 23, 2008

Mrs. Gillibrand submitted the following resolution; which was referred 
          to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Congratulating the Saratoga Race Course as it celebrates its 140th 
                                season.

Whereas, July 23, 2008, marks the start of the Saratoga Race Course's 140th 
        season;
Whereas horseracing enjoys a history rich in tradition throughout the world;
Whereas the Saratoga Race Course welcomes the best thoroughbreds from across the 
        world;
Whereas the Saratoga Race Course has the highest total attendance of any New 
        York thoroughbred racetrack, despite having the shortest season;
Whereas the Saratoga Race Course is the oldest organized sporting venue in the 
        United States;
Whereas many of the Nation's top thoroughbreds have raced at the Saratoga Race 
        Course, including Man o' War, Cigar, Secretariat, and Affirmed;
Whereas the Saratoga Race Course welcomes an average of nearly 30,000 visitors 
        per day throughout its race season;
Whereas 2008 marks the 139th running of the Travers Stakes, the oldest major 
        thoroughbred race for 3-year-old horses in the United States;
Whereas the Saratoga Race Course has a total economic impact of approximately 
        $200,000,000 throughout Saratoga County and the surrounding communities;
Whereas the Saratoga Race Course contributes more than 2,500 jobs to Saratoga 
        Springs and the surrounding area;
Whereas Saratoga Springs during racing season is a top destination for tourists 
        from around the world;
Whereas the Saratoga Race Course has added modern technology while still 
        maintaining its Victorian charm and original traditions; and
Whereas the Saratoga Race Course is the oldest continuously-operating 
        thoroughbred race track in the United States: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) congratulates the Saratoga Race Course as it celebrates 
        its 140th season;
            (2) encourages all people in the United States to spend an 
        electrifying day at the races; and
            (3) recognizes the Saratoga Race Course's important place 
        in horseracing history.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                    13,800
<RECEIVABLES>                                  143,229
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               143,229
<PP&E>                                         217,900
<DEPRECIATION>                                 115,649
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 280,646
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,079,174
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          150,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          5560
<OTHER-SE>                                   (979,088)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   280,646
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               196,070
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               958,487
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,572
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (606,501)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (606,501)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (606,501)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          22,373
<SECURITIES>                                    42,677
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                66,863
<PP&E>                                           2,961
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  69,994
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,876
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           136
<OTHER-SE>                                     109,186
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    69,994
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,646
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   4
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,616)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,616)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.34)


</TABLE>
From: jddries5@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:52:14 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,

donna Driesenga

Holland, MI 49424
No. 61481.

#### Hudson Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 253086-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the articles in question are not incandescent electric-light bulbs, that they are so-called “Bug” bulbs, that they are in chief value of metal, and that they are exclusively used with an insecticide as a vaporizing bulb for insect control in commercial plants and in households, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: Joan Sanford

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 11:51:21 AM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Joan Sanford

PO Box 292

Warrenville, il 60555
#### KAVANAGH et al. *v.*BROWN, TREASURER OF MICHIGAN, et al.

No. 299.

Decided October 22, 1962.

*Thomas M. Kavanagh*and *Eugene F. Black,*appellants, *pro se.*

*Frank J. Kelley,*Attorney General of Michigan, *Eugene Krasicky,*Solicitor General, and *Stanton S. Faville,*Chief Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.

Per Curiam.

The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
From: rifle05@hawaii.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:46:57 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,

victor canubida

Ewa Beach, HI 96706
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1404 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1404

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the small refiner 
               exception to the oil depletion deduction.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 5, 2001

  Mr. Breaux introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the small refiner 
               exception to the oil depletion deduction.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DETERMINATION OF SMALL REFINER EXCEPTION TO OIL DEPLETION 
              DEDUCTION.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (4) of section 613A(d) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to certain refiners excluded) is amended 
to read as follows:
            ``(4) Certain refiners excluded.--If the taxpayer or a 
        related person engages in the refining of crude oil, subsection 
        (c) shall not apply to the taxpayer for a taxable year if the 
        average daily refinery runs of the taxpayer and the related 
        person for the taxable year exceed 75,000 barrels. For purposes 
        of this paragraph, the average daily refinery runs for any 
        taxable year shall be determined by dividing the aggregate 
        refinery runs for the taxable year by the number of days in the 
        taxable year.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2001.
                                 <all>
```
From: jdoor1320@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:03:18 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,

Jennifer Door

Brentwood, CA 94513
From: ednchick@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:12:11 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,

Edward J. Deppert

Gilbert, AZ 85296
No. 59190.

protests 231757-K, etc. (San Francisco).

#### Frazar & Hansen, Ltd., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues are the same in all material respects as those.the subject of *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 193, C. D. 1519), the protests were dismissed, and the matters were remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).
Exhibit 4.9



 Exhibit 4.9 
 CONSENT OF EXPERT 
 January 7, 2013 

I, James W. Hendry, P. Eng., hereby consent to (1) the references to my name included or incorporated by reference in the registration statement on
Form F-80 of Denison Mines Corp. in connection with (a) the report entitled “Technical Report on the Denison Mines Inc. Uranium Properties, Saskatchewan, Canada” dated November 21, 2005, as amended on February 16, 2006,
(b) the report entitled “Technical Report on the Sue D Uranium Deposit Mineral Resource Estimate, Saskatchewan, Canada” dated March 31, 2006, (c) the report entitled “Technical Report on the Midwest Uranium Deposit
Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Estimates, Saskatchewan, Canada” dated June 1, 2005, as amended on February 14, 2006, and (2) all other references to the undersigned included or incorporated by reference in the registration
statement on Form F-80 of Denison Mines Corp. dated January 2013. 
  

					
			
	 /s/ James W. Hendry
	 		 	 
	 James W. Hendry, P.Eng.