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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:36:47 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,

Gerald Zweck

South Milwaukee, WI 53172
-79 -78 -77 -76 -75

38 39 40


### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000 18 12 06 00 07/19 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 19 Jul 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.92 N 77.01 WMeters AGL
From: ebetts@georgiahealth.edu

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:15:17 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,

Eugene Betts

, 30909-3422
No. 63759.

protests 59/14663 and 59/18853 (San Francisco).

#### Pez-Haas, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of plastic candy dispensers in chief value of polystyrene, not articles in chief value of cellulose acetate, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Description of Amendment to Letter Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.62 
 Written Description of Amendment to Letter Agreement, between Meadows Office, L.L.C. and Cancer Genetics, Inc., dated April 6, 2012: 
 Cancer Genetics, Inc. (the “Company”) and Meadows Office L.L.C. (the “Landlord”) orally agreed to amend the letter agreement dated April 6, 2012 (the “Letter Agreement”) as
follows: 
 - The Landlord agreed not to enforce at present the July 31, 2012 deadline in the Letter Agreement and to allow the Company an
unspecified amount of additional time to complete a capital raise of $20,000,000. 
 - The Company agreed to update the Landlord periodically
regarding its progress towards consummating an initial public offering and its expected timing.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 

RECEIVED 

DEC 2 3 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO. FAA-2014-0807 

PAZ AVIATION, INC. FAA CASE NO. 2011S0190272 

Respondent Judge J.E. Sullivan 

Joint Briefing Schedule 

Pursuant to Judge Sullivan's Order Directing Parties to Confer and File an Agreed 

Briefing Schedule, dated November 19, 2014, the parties submit the following briefing schedule 

due dates: 

a. January 23,2015- Paz Aviation's Brief in Support of its Motion to Dismiss 

b. February 15,2015- Agency's Response to Paz Aviation's Brief in Support of its 

Motion to Dismiss 

c. March 15, 2015- Paz Aviation's Reply to Agency's Response 

d. A1picM;2015- Motion Hearing 

e; Ap~~l 7, 2015 -Alternative Date for Motion Hearing 

f. Appl 9, 2015- Alternative Date for Motion Hearing 

ub~itted this )1!__, day of Vi LMr/ ~ , 2014. 

! 

--\1---"------J.J'c--=·~,·. =.:_· • < . 

William Vines . ' · • , , . · . , 

Counsel for Conl.plainant ,. .. · ·· . ,,,,. 

'I ,I 

,, ' 

; ,- .-

. ' 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Joint Briefing Schedule was sent to the following via certified 

mail: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

Facsimile: (202) 366-7536 

David M. McDonald, Esq. 

McDonald & McDonald 

Attorneys at Law 

P.O. Box 669122-9428 

Miami, FL 33135-2321 

Telephone: (305) 643-5313 

Facsimile: (305) 643-4990 

Onmru Donna Stanley ~1\\0~ Legal Assistant 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

nrc 1 

Dated 

2
The 11th Annual Clean 

Annual Clean 

Excellence Awards Excellence Awards

EPA

Office of Air and Radiation Office of Air and Radiation

Ashlea Page
10 Years of Excellence 10 Years of Excellence

• The Clean Air Excellence The Clean Air Excellence 

Awards Program was established Awards Program was established in 2000 at the recommendation in 2000 at the recommendation of the CAAAC. of the CAAAC.

• Since 2000 CAAAC has honored Since 2000 CAAAC has honored 

152 outstanding and innovative 152 outstanding and innovative efforts that help make progress efforts that help make progress in achieving cleaner air. in achieving cleaner air.
Awards Categories Awards Categories

• 6 Categories 6 Categories: 

– Clean Air Technology Clean Air Technology, 

– Community Action Community Action – Education/Outreach Education/Outreach – Regulatory/ Policy Innovations Regulatory/ Policy Innovations– Transportation Efficiency Innovations Transportation Efficiency Innovations

• 2 special awards 2 special awards: 

– Thomas W. Thomas W. Zosel Outstanding Individual Achievement Aw

Outstanding Individual Achievement Aw

– Gregg Cooke Visionary Program Award Gregg Cooke Visionary Program Award
Clean Air Excellence Awards 

Clean Air Excellence Awards 

• Applications were due August, 13, 2010 Applications were due August, 13, 2010

– This year we have received 75 promising application

This year we have received 75 promising applicatio

– 12 

-15 winners will likely be chosen 15 winners will likely be chosen

• Applications will undergo review by Applications will undergo review by

– EPA Headquarter and Regional Staff EPA Headquarter and Regional Staff– CAAAC Awards Workgroup (volunteers needed) CAAAC Awards Workgroup (volunteers needed)– EPA Office of Enforcement EPA Office of Enforcement

• Final Decisions by Assistant Administrat

Final Decisions by Assistant Administrat

January 2011 January 2011
The Awards Ceremony: Past 

The Awards Ceremony: Past 

Future

• Awards will be presented at the May 2011 CA

Awards will be presented at the May 2011 CA

meeting meeting

• Typically event has been held in the evening 

Typically event has been held in the evening 

subcommittee meetings subcommittee meetings

• Concern has been raised by CAAAC membe

Concern has been raised by CAAAC membe

EPA staff over attendance EPA staff over attendance

• Suggestion made to have awards during lunch 

Suggestion made to have awards during lunch 

CAAAC meeting CAAAC meeting day?

• Other ideas?
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit 

## FILED

December 19, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-10346 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM HENDERSON, also known as Keg,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:02-CR-00174-11

Before JONES, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

William Henderson appeals his sentence following his

guilty-plea conviction of conspiracy to distribu te more than 5

kilograms of cocaine and 50 grams or more of a mixture containing

cocaine base. He argues that the district court erred in refusing

to adjust his offense level downward by three levels for acceptance

of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 because he refused to2

discuss with the probation officer his offense conduct or criminal

history and because he timely pleaded guilty.

Whether a defendant has sufficiently demonstrated

acceptance of responsibility is a factual question, and the

standard of review is even more deferential than “clear error.”

United States v. Spires , 79 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir. 1996). This

court will affirm a sentencing court’s decision not to award a

reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 unless it is “without foundation.”

United States v. Hooten , 933 F.2d 293, 297-98 (5th Cir. 1991).

We have recognized the refusal to debrief a probation

officer as a factor in deciding whether to apply the adjustment for

acceptance of responsibility

. S ee United States v. Solis

, 299 F.3d

420, 458 (5th Cir. 2002); United States v. Chapa-Garza

, 62 F.3d

1 18, 123 (5th Cir. 1995); U nited States v. Medina-Anicacio

, 325

F.3d 638, 648 (5th Cir. 2003). Having reviewed the record in this

case, we hold that the district court’s refusal to grant the

adjustment was not without any foundation. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1,

comment (n.3); Hooten
, 933 F.2d at 297-98. Henderson also has not

shown reversible error by arguing that U.S.S.G § 3E1.1 recognizes

his Fifth Amendment right to r emain silent with the probation

officer. S ee United States v. Kleinebreil

, 966 F.2d 945, 953 (5th

Cir. 1992). The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED

.
From: els356@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:45:11 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,

Elsa Roberts

La Mirada, CA 90639
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
                       
                  
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         2,371,030
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  54,240
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,486,700
<PP&E>                                        31,738,750
<DEPRECIATION>                                15,444,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                19,687,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,885,540
<BONDS>                                          866,670
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,610
<OTHER-SE>                                    13,933,780
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  19,687,600
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,696,250
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               786,010
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              34,090
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                876,150
<INCOME-TAX>                                   349,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            527,050
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   527,050
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.33
        


</TABLE>
#### Gary SWEETING, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Sherwood R. MCCABE, Correctional Administrator at Harnett Correctional Institution; Jerry McQueen, Screening Officer at Harnett Correctional Institution; Norma Wood, Case Worker/Manager at Harnett Correctional Institution; J. Baker Williams, D.O.C. Resolution Board Examiner; Gerotha R. Spain, D.O.C. Resolution Board Examiner; Ron Miriello, Vice President for Education and Student Support Services; Daniel Thomas, Education Director for Central Carolina Community College (CCCC) at HCI, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-6468.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 3, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 17, 2005.

Gary Sweeting, Appellant pro se.

*178Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Gary Sweeting appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.*
      *See Sweeting v. McCabe,*No. CA-05-13-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Mar. 7, 2005). 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*

In addition to seeking review of the district court’s dismissal of his complaint, Sweeting also asserts on appeal that he was not provided with the opportunity to amend his pleading, as requested in his complaint. Generally, a pro se litigant’s pleadings should be construed liberally to avoid inequity and the complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief. *See Gordon v. Leeke,*574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir.1978). Leave to amend a complaint "shall be freely given when justice so requires,” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), although the decision to grant leave rests within the sound discretion of the district court. *Medigen of Ky., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of W.Va.,*985 F.2d 164, 167-68 (4th Cir.1993). If a pro se complaint contains a potentially cognizable claim, the plaintiff should be given an opportunity to particularize his allegations. See *Coleman v. Peyton,*340 F.2d 603, 604 (4th Cir.1965) (per curiam). Because Sweeting failed to state a potentially cognizable claim, the district court did not err when it denied Sweeting the opportunity to particularize or amend his complaint.
From: rmtrahan@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:50:22 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,

Rose Trahan

Crowley, LA 70526
#### Nora Manning, as Executrix of Jeremiah C. Manning, Deceased, Appellant, *v.*Mary J. Grant, Respondent.

*Manning*v. *ffrant,*142 App. Div. 921, affirmed.

(Argued February 29, 1912;

decided March 19, 1912.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered January 14, 1911, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict in an action to recover assets of the estate of Jeremiah 0. Manning, deceased, alleged to have been converted by defendant.

*Adelbert W. Boynton*for appellant.

*Nelson L. Robinson, Nathan T. Hewitt*and *Fred M. La Duke*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Oh. J., Gray, Haight, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Chase and Collin, JJ.
#### Joseph Disher, Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed. Opinion by

Bradley, J.;

Haight, J., not sitting.
No. P66/180. —

#### J. C. DeJong & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States, protests 58/22797, etc. (New York).

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of pole ends similar in all material respects to those the subject of *J. C. DeJong & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(52 CCPA 26, C.A.D. 852), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
H. Res. 1513 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 27, 2008. 

Resolved, That a revised edition of the Rules and Manual 

of the House of Representatives for the One Hundred Eleventh Congress be printed as a House document, and that 

three thousand additional copies shall be printed and bound 

for the use of the House of Representatives, of which nine 

hundred copies shall be bound in leather with thumb index 

and delivered as may be directed by the Parliamentarian of 

the House. 

Attest: 

Clerk.