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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:12:17 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,

Linda Meakim

Wilton, ME 04294
#### Josephine Chianese, Appellant, v Werner Meier et al., Respondents.

[632 NYS2d 87]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered May 5, 1995, which granted plaintiff’s motion for disclosure sanctions only to the extent of directing the deposition of defendant corporation through Mr. Click, unanimously modified, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of precluding Mr. Meier, Mr. Durakovic, and Mr. Ferrugia from testifying at trial, and precluding the individual defendant from denying ownership of, and the corporate defendant from denying control over, the building in question, and otherwise affirmed, with costs to plaintiff-appellant.

Defendants’ conduct was obstructive to orderly disclosure, but did not rise to the level that would justify the "ultimate penalty” of striking their answer *(Virola v New York City Hous. Auth.,*185 AD2d 122, 124). We modify as above indicated to hold defendants to their representations concerning the unavailability of the building’s owner, superintendent and property manager at the time of the alleged incident, and to clarify the IAS Court’s apparent intention to deem the issue of ownership and control resolved against defendants. Concur— Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Ross, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                      5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         755,174
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  11,880,498
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (675,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    1,469,728
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               14,714,500
<PP&E>                                         98,206,088
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (49,812,143)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 82,016,867
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          13,542,648
<BONDS>                                        32,231,018
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       19,235,463
<OTHER-SE>                                     11,899,738
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   82,016,867
<SALES>                                        52,224,300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               52,224,300
<CGS>                                          32,778,951
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  46,883,900
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,387,768
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                4,205,993
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,675,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2,530,993
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.25
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Akbar RASHADA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-40999.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 17, 2005.

Randall Lynn Fluke, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Beaumont, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Amy R. Blalock, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Tyler, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Akbar Rashada, an inmate at the federal penitentiary in Beaumont, Texas, pleaded *334guilty to possessing a prohibited object (namely, a metal weapon) within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Rashada was sentenced to 27 months of imprisonment and a two-year term of supervised release. He argues that, in light of *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), his sentence is invalid because the district court applied the sentencing guidelines as if they were mandatory. We review for plain error. *See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo,*407 F.3d 728, 733 (5th Cir. 2005), *petition for cert. filed*(July 25, 2005) (No. 05-5556).

Rashada is unable to establish reversible plain error with regard to his *Booker*claim because he cannot establish that being sentenced under a mandatory sentencing guidelines scheme affected his substantial rights. The record does not indicate that the district court would have reached a significantly different result under a sentencing scheme in which the guidelines were advisory only. *See Valenzuela-Quevedo,*407 F.3d at 733-34.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 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.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRIAN L. BROWN, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

 v. 

BARBARA VON BLANCKENSEE, 

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 20-15748 

D.C. No. 4:19-cv-00436-RCC-LCK 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 17, 2021**

Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Brian L. Brown appeals pro se from the district court’s 

judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see Alaimalo v. United 

States, 645 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2011), we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 24 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-15748 

Brown contends that the Bureau of Prisons violated his due process and First 

Amendment rights, as well as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons 

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., by removing him from the Religious Diet 

Program. As the district court correctly concluded, the appropriate remedy for 

these claims lies in a civil rights action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named

Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), rather than a § 2241 petition. See Tucker v. Carlson, 

925 F.2d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1991) (federal prisoner asserting civil rights violation 

must file a Bivens action rather than a § 2241 petition); see also Hernandez v.

Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000) (a § 2241 petition is limited to 

challenges to “the manner, location, or conditions of a sentence’s execution”). 

Even if, as Brown asserts, his suspension from the Religious Diet Program

constituted a disciplinary action, that action did not subject him to greater 

restrictions of his liberty sufficient to invoke habeas jurisdiction. See Bostic v. 

Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir. 1989), overruled on other grounds

by Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2016).

AFFIRMED.
From: dennis@thepregnancycenter.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:54:45 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,

Dennis Rima

Dubuque, IA 52001
# 

# CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

POWERNOTES (SM)

With Maturities of 9 months or more from Date of Issue

Registration No.  333-97047

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (3)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO.  368                                                               Trade Date:  12/08/03

(To Prospectus Supplement dated August 15, 2002 &

  Prospectus dated August  8, 2002)                                                                     Issue Date:   12/11/03

The Date of this Pricing SupplementDecember 08, 2003

SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION OR REPAYMENT

  CUSIP                                                                                                                                Date and terms of redemption or

     or        Stated                                                                  Interest                                    repayment (including any

Common  Interest                      Price to  Discounts &        Payment  Survivors                  applicable regular or special

  Code      Rate (1)               Maturity                Public (2)                Commissions      Frequency      Option     Yes/No                record dates)

14911QRH6   4.05%                        12/15/09          100%                    1.0%                   Quarterly           YES                       NO                

 

Principal                                                                                1st Payment Day         

Amount                   Proceeds                 Dealer                            Date                  Count

$3,737,000.00                $3,699,630.00         ABN AMROInc.                 03/15/04                 30/360    

Original Issue Discount Note:                                                                   Total Amount of OID:

____  Yes                X   No                                                                                   N/A

The interest rates on the PowerNotes (SM) may be changed by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation from time to time, but any such change will not affect the interest rate on any PowerNotes (SM) offered prior to the effective date of the change.  Prior to the date of this Pricing Supplement, $364.600 mm principal amount of the PowerNotes (SM) were sold at interest rates then in effect.  Subsequent offerings of PowerNotes (SM) will be made under the Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated August 8,2002.

Expressed as a percentage of aggregate principal amount.  Actual Price to Public may be less, and will be determined by prevailing market prices at the time of purchase as set forth in the confirmation sheet.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6263
JIMMY WAYNE PUGH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FRANKLIN FREEMAN; HARRY CHAMBERS; GARY LUTHER; JOHN MILLS; GARY MILLER; HAZEL KE ITH; OTHER UNKNOWN PRISON OFFICIALS, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-30-5-F) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 1, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jimmy Wayne Pugh, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Pugh v. Freeman , No. CA-96-30-5-F (E.D.N.C. Jan. 29, 1996).We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
From: kathyemt16@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:47:14 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,

Kathleen Tercheck

Howell, MI 48855
Order entered April 7 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 16 - 00386 - CV IN RE MICHAEL A. BLOOM, Relator Original Proceeding from the Probate Court No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. PR - 14 - 01380 - 3 

### O RDE R Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Lang and Justice Brown Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus. We DENY relator’s Emergency Motion to Stay Order of April 1, 2016 Ordering Relator to Vacate His House. W e ORDER relator to bear the costs of this original proceeding.

/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
From: sepan@ntin.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:54:48 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,

Linda Sepanski

Muenster, TX 76252
Exhibit 99.2

                                AEROCENTURY CORP.

                    Certification of Chief financial Officer
                  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted
            pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


In connection with this quarterly report of AeroCentury Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002 (the "Report"), I, Toni M.
Perazzo, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date
hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United
States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

              (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
              13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of
              1934, and

              (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
              all material respects, the financial condition and results of
              operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods
              indicated.



Date: November 14, 2002             /s/ Toni M. Perazzo
                                    -----------------------
                                    Toni M. Perazzo
                                    Chief Financial Officer
From: heislord@elpasotel.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:35:38 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,

Carol Lugg

Calhan, CO 80808
No. 68398.

protest 63/12802 (New York).

#### N. M. Albert Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

Am examination of the papers in the case showing that the protest was not filed within the 60-day period provided by section 514, Tariff Act of 1930, the protest was dismissed as untimely.