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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44 Re: Abortion is Murder

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:54:25 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,

Angelo Ascione

Eatontown, NJ 07724
From: karen502@canby.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:24:50 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,

Karen Moore

Canby, OR 97013
#### Maria Del Rosario LAGUNAS MORALES; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-73749.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 4, 2005.

*615Maria Del Rosario Lagunas Morales, Riverside, CA, Pro se.

Jose Alejandro Barcenas, Riverside, CA, Pro se.

Jose Alejandro Barcenas Lagunas, Riverside, CA, Pro se.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA; Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA; Richard M. Evans Esq., and Susan Houser, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Maria Del Rosario Lagunas Morales, her husband, Jose Alejandro Barcenas and her son, Jose Alejandro Barcenas Lagunas, each a native and citizen of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of their appeal of an immigration judge’s denial of their motion to reopen proceedings held in absentia. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, *Salta v. INS,*314 F.3d 1076, 1078 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition for review.

Petitioners contend that they did not receive the Notice to Appear immigration officials sent to them by regular mail in 2003. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Petitioners failed to rebut the presumption of delivery created by regular mail, because the affidavit Petitioners submitted with their motion to reopen stated that Petitioners did not receive the Notice to Appear, but it did not state that no other responsible party living at their address received the Notice to Appear. *See id.*at 1079 (holding that a sworn affidavit that neither the alien nor another responsible party residing at the alien’s address received the notice will ordinarily rebut the presumption of delivery created by regular mail).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
From: 2buzzards@windstream.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:36:08 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,

Hazel Elliott

Winder, GA 30680
No. 67077.

protests 59/12469(B), etc. (Mobile).

#### Falcon Sales Co. *v.*United States,

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.
Home | Contact

Gas Grills Fireplace Logs Gas Heaters Gas Lights



## Frequently Asked Questions How much does it cost to have the fireplace logs orheater pilot light on? A pilot light will burn approximately 1,000 BTU’s p er hour (720,000 BTUs per month). 100 cu. ft. of ga s (1 CCF) = 102,700 BTUs therefore the pilot uses 7.01 CCFs per month Current cost per CCF of natural gas = $1.10* therefore the cost is abou t one penny per hour or $7.71 per month How much does it cost to operate a gas fireplace? The average gas log set will burn approximately 30, 000 BTUs per hour. 100 cu. ft. of gas (1 CCF) = 102 ,700 BTUs therefore the log set uses about .29211 CCFs per hour of operation. Current cost per CCF of natural gas = $1.10 * there fore the cost is only $.32 per hour of operation! How much will I save by installing gas logs or a ga s heater? A ventless gas log set or heater is over 99% effici ent. The Hearth, Patio and Barbeque Association (ht tp:/ /www.hpba.org/fuel-efficiencycalculator/) estimates that a homeowner can save ap proximately 300 CCF per year by heating the rooms t he family occupies the most and running the central heating system less. This equals approximately $300 per year at current retail natural gas prices*. How much will I save by converting from a wood burn ing to a natural gas fireplace? www.ehow.com estimates the costs savings to be approximately $200 per year assuming the annual usage is 100 hours and the aver age cost of a cord of wood is $200. How much does it cost to operate an outdoor gas lan tern? Outdoor gas lanterns use approximately 1,280 BTUs p er hour (921,000 BTUs per month) 100 cu. ft. of gas (1 CCF) = 102,700 BTUs therefore the lantern uses 8.97 CCFs per month Current cost per CCF of natural gas = $1.10* therefore the cost i s $9.87 per month. * The current natural gas price is based on January2011 Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania rates including Gas Cost, Distribution Charges and Gas Supply Charg es.

Gas Grills | Fireplace Logs | Gas Heaters | Gas Lanterns | Hom e | Contact

Copyright © 1996-2009 PGG&H Company, LLC. All rights reserved PA Home Improvement Contractor Registration Number PA 062908 Monday Tuesday - Friday Saturday 9:30am to 7:00pm 9:30am to 5:00pm 9:30am to 4:00pm 42 Old Clairton Road Pittsburgh, PA 15236 [see map] p: 412-655-7444 / e: info@pittsburghgasgrills.com 

### Contact Us | Pittsburgh Gas Grill & Heater Co. http://www.pittsburghgasgrill.com/faq.html

1 of 1 1/31/2012 11:03 AM
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Reginald LUCAS, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-6654.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 25, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 17, 2005.

*170Reginald Lucas, Appellant pro se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

Reginald Lucas, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion * and dismissing his action filed pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Lucas also seeks to appeal a separate district court order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lucas has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal from the denial of the § 2255 motion.

Because Lucas did not raise his FOIA claim in his informal brief to this court, the issue is waived. *See*4th Cir. Local R. 34(b). Further, in Lucas’ valid and binding plea agreement, he waived his right to bring the FOIA claim as well as the claim he raised in his Rule 60(b) motion. We accordingly affirm the district court’s order denying the FOIA request and the Rule 60(b) motion. The motion to compel the district court to state its reason for denying a certificate of appealability and the “Motion to Subtract Supplement Brief’ are denied. 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 PART; DISMISSED IN PART*

*

 The motion did not seek relief from any civil judgment, but rather was an attack on Lucas’ drug conviction. Lucas filed the motion before he filed his § 2255 action.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAdvanced Face Gear Surface Durability EvaluationsThe surface durability life of helical face gears and isotropic super-finished (ISF) face gears was investigated. Experimental fatigue tests were performed at the NASA Glenn Research Center. Endurance tests were performed on 10 sets of helical face gears in mesh with tapered involute helical pinions, and 10 sets of ISF-enhanced straight face gears in mesh with tapered involute spur pinions. The results were compared to previous tests on straight face gears. The life of the ISF configuration was slightly less than that of previous tests on straight face gears. The life of the ISF configuration was slightly greater than that of the helical configuration.Document ID20160003580Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsLewicki, David G.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Heath, Gregory F.*(Boeing Co. Mesa, AZ, United States)*Date AcquiredMarch 22, 2016Publication DateMarch 1, 2016Subject CategoryMechanical EngineeringReport/Patent NumberNASA/TM-2016-218943GRC-E-DAA-TN23108E-19188Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 664817.02.03.02.02.02CONTRACT_GRANT: W911W6-06-2-0006Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.KeywordsfatiguetransmissionsgearsAvailable DownloadsNameType20160003580.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
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>James A. Matarese, Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>James A. Matarese, appellant pro se.Suffolk County Traffic Prosecutor's Office (Justin W. Smiloff of counsel), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Suffolk County Traffic and Parking Violations Agency (Kenneth S. Diamond, J.H.O.), entered March 28, 2018. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, imposed a $50 civil liability, plus a $30 administrative fee, upon defendant as the owner of a vehicle which had failed to stop at a red light.</p><p>ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.</p><p>This action was commenced to impose civil liability upon defendant as the owner of a vehicle which had been recorded by a camera as having failed to stop at a red light before making a right turn at the intersection of "NY 25 &amp;commat; NY 110 - WB" in violation of Suffolk County Local Law ยง 20-2009 and Vehicle and Traffic Law ยง 1111-b. </p><p>At a nonjury trial, the People entered into evidence a technician's certificate certifying the alleged violation, wherein it was alleged, among other things, that the technician is an employee of Suffolk County, that she had inspected the recorded images, and that the attached exhibits were true and accurate copies of the images she had reviewed. In addition, at trial, the video of the incident, which was reviewed by the court, depicted defendant's vehicle in the right lane <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>traveling toward the intersection in question. The video shows that there is a traffic signal over the right lane having a yellow signal which changed to red before defendant's vehicle proceeded to make a right turn without stopping. This evidence established, prima facie, defendant's liability (<i>see</i> Vehicle and Traffic Law ยง 1111-b [d]).</p><p>Defendant's contentions that the technician's certificate should not have been admitted into evidence because it did not contain an allegation that the technician was an employee of Suffolk County is without merit since the technician expressly alleged therein that she is an employee of Suffolk County. Additionally, we find defendant's contention, that the video evidence shows that the traffic light was malfunctioning or was obstructed, to be without merit. The traffic signal directly over the lane of traffic where defendant's vehicle turned right without stopping was not malfunctioning and the view of the signal was not obstructed.</p><p>We find defendant's remaining contention concerning the prosecutor's statement to similarly lack merit.</p><p>Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.</p><p>GARGUILO, J.P., TOLBERT and EMERSON, JJ., concur.</p><br><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: May 23, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
February 27, 1996

United Gold & Government Fund, Inc.(Class A shares, Class Y shares)
6300 Lamar Avenue
P. O. Box 29217
Shawnee Mission, Kansas  66201-9217

Dear Sir or Madam:

In connection with the public offering of shares of Capital Stock, par value
$1.00 per share, of United Gold & Government Fund, Inc. (Class A shares, Class Y
shares) (the "Fund"), I have examined such corporate records and documents and
have made such further investigation and examination as I deemed necessary for
the purpose of this opinion.

It is my opinion that the 3,154,736 shares of Capital Stock of the Fund,
registration of which the notice makes definite in number, were legally issued,
fully paid and nonassessable.

I hereby consent to the filing of this opinion with the Rule 24f-2 Notice.

Very truly yours,


Sharon K. Pappas
Attorney at Law

SKP:ss
From: mhudlow1964@netzero.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:22:19 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,

Melody Hudlow

Conyers, GA 30012
No. 60169.

protests 845811-G, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### W. X. Huber Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that 20 percent of the merchandise consists of rags used chiefly for papermaking, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained with respect to said 20 percent of the merchandise.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
BJs Wholesale Club, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended May 1, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Frank D. Forward, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



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



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                    |  |                        
|------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: June 9, 2004 |  | /S/ FRANK D. FORWARD   
|                    |  | Frank D. Forward       
|                    |  | Chief Financial Officer