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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:47:56 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Theresa Sherrin

Cypress, CA 90630
From: sbateson02@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:40:51 AM

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,

Shirlene Bateson

Tehachapi, CA 93561
```

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 66492]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20989]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4497-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

Kentucky; Amendment No. 9 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-4497-DR), dated March 28, 2020, 
and related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on June 29, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the 
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Robert D. 
Samaan, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer 
for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Gracia B. Szczech as 
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-20989 Filed 9-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
```
From: susan@bluedot.kscoxmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:49:00 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,

Susan Flynn

Topeka, KS 66605
From: flexder@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:33:09 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,

Michael Derrick

West Falls, NY 14170
EXHIBIT 10.4

AMENDMENT TO CHANGE OF CONTROL AGREEMENT

THIS AMENDMENT (the "Amendment") is made as of the 31st day of December, 2008, by and between inTEST Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("inTEST") and James Pelrin ("Executive").

WHEREAS, inTEST and Executive entered into an agreement, dated May 5, 2008, (the "Agreement") which may be subject to Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code");

WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of Executive and inTEST to amend the Agreement to comply with final regulations issued by the Internal Revenue Service under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, (the "Code") in order for Executive to avoid the adverse tax consequences that would arise from a failure to comply with Code Section 409A, including the imposition of an additional 20% excise tax on payments provided thereunder;

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties, intending to be legally bound, agree to amend the Agreement as of January 1, 2009 by adding the following new Section 20 thereto:

"20.	COMPLIANCE WITH CODE SECTION 409A.For purposes of this Agreement, Executive's termination of employment shall mean Executive's "separation from service" as defined under Code Section 409A. Each payment under this Agreement that is determined to be subject to Section 409A shall be treated as a separate payment. In no event may Executive, directly or indirectly, designate the calendar year of any payment to be made under this Agreement. Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, if Executive is a "specified employee" (as defined in Section 409A of the Code) as of his "separation from service" (as defined in Section 409A of the Code), then the payment of any amounts payable hereunder that are subject to Section 409A of the Code shall be postponed in compliance with Section 409A (without any reduction in such payments ultimately paid or provided to Executive) until the first payroll date that occurs after the date that is six (6) months following Executive's "separation from service." Any such postponed payments shall be paid in a lump sum to Executive on the first payroll date that occurs after the date that is six (6) months following Executive's "separation from service." If Executive dies during the postponement period prior to the payment of the postponed amount, the amounts withheld on account of Section 409A shall be paid to Executive's estate within sixty (60) days after the date of his death."

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first written above.

inTEST CORPORATION

By:   /s/ Alyn R. Holt
      Alyn R. Holt, Chairman of the Board

EXECUTIVE

/s/ James Pelrin
James Pelrin
No. 68108.

#### United China & Glass Co. *v.*United States,

protest 63/27 (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of oatmeal saucers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Copeland & Thompson, Inc.*v. *United States*(12 Cust. Ct. 85, C.D. 833), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 13, 2016

No. 04-15-00791-CV

TALISMAN ENERGY USA, INC.,

Appellant

v.

MATRIX PETROLEUM, LLC, Matrix Petroleum Holdings, LLC, and JAR Resources 

Holdings, L.P.,

Appellees

From the 218th Judicial District Court, La Salle County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14-08-00158-CVL

Honorable Russel Wilson, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The appellee’s unopposed motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby 

GRANTED. Time is extended to July 26, 2016.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 13th day of July, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
From: ewoolard@embarqmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:06:03 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,

Eric Woolard

Williamston, NC 27892
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. JESUS FOR TUNATO FELIX-HER AS, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-30303

D.C . No. 2:13-c r-00164-M JP M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington M arsha J. Pe c hm an, C hie f Judge , Pre siding Submitte d Se pte m

be r 23, 2014 * * B e fore : W . FLETC HER , R AW LINSON, a

n d C HRISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Je sus Fortuna

to Fe lix-He ra s a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd c ha lle nge s his guilty-ple a c onvic tion a

nd se nte nc e of 35 m onths a n d 3 we e ks for ille g a l re e ntry

a fte r de porta

tion, in viola

tion of 8 U.S.C . § 1326. Pursua nt to Ande rs v . C

alifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Fe lix-He ra s ’ s c ounse l ha s file d a brie f 

# F IL ED OCT 02 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).sta

ting tha t the re are n o grounds for re lie f, a long with a m otion to withdra wa s c ounse l of re c ord. Fe lix-He ra s ha s file d a pro se supple m e nta l brie f. No answe ring brie f ha s be e n file d. Our indepe nde nt re v i e w of there c ord pursua nt to Pe nson v . Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), disc lose s no a rgua ble grounds for re lie f a s to Fe lix-He ra s ’ s c onvic tion. W e a c c ordingly a ffirm Fe lix-He ra s’ s c onvic tion. Fe lix-He ra s wa ive d the right to a ppe a l his sente nc e . B e c a

use the re c ord disc lose s no a

rgua ble issuea s to theva lidity of the se nte nc ing wa ive r, we dismiss Fe lix-He ra s ’ s a

ppe a l a s to his sente nc e . S e e Unite d State s v . W atson , 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th C ir. 2009). C ounse l’ s m otion to withdra w is G RANT E D. AFFIRM E D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 3 - 3 0 3 0 3 2
From: J_D_S@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:12:09 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,

Jim Steele

San Antonio, TX 78247
No. 59204.

protests 256037-K, etc. (Louisville).

#### Loretto Distilling Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: jeff@generalcargodelivery.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:35:33 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,

Jeff Brendle

Tampa, FL 33634