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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:16:40 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,

Virginia Holmes

Mesa, AZ 85203
```

[114th Congress Public Law 142]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 130 STAT. 326]]

Public Law 114-142
114th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To extend temporarily the extended period of protection for members of 
  uniformed services relating to mortgages, mortgage foreclosure, and 
 eviction, and for other purposes. <<NOTE: Mar. 31, 2016 -  [S. 2393]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Foreclosure 
Relief and Extension for Servicemembers Act of 2015.>> 
SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 50 USC 3901 note.>>  SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Foreclosure Relief and Extension for 
Servicemembers Act of 2015''.
SEC. 2. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF EXTENDED PERIOD OF PROTECTIONS FOR 
                    MEMBERS OF UNIFORMED SERVICES RELATING TO 
                    MORTGAGES, MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE, AND EVICTION.

    Section 710(d) of the Honoring America's Veterans and Caring for 
Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-154; 50 U.S.C. 3953 
note) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``December 31, 2015'' and 
        inserting ``December 31, 2017''; and
            (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``January 1, 2016'' and 
        inserting ``January 1, 2018''.

    Approved March 31, 2016.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 2393:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 161 (2015):
                                    Dec. 10, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.
                                                        Vol. 162 (2016):
                                    Mar. 21, considered and passed 
                                        House.

                                  <all>
```
From: weblessed7x@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:04:14 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,

Therese Duco

Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000874534
<NAME> OUTDOOR SYSTEMS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          16,317
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  175,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               298,902
<PP&E>                                       1,897,784
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,850,396
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          272,098
<BONDS>                                      1,628,344
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,851
<OTHER-SE>                                     839,296
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,850,396
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               590,616
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  299,504
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             110,943
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 73,476
<INCOME-TAX>                                    24,982
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    48,494
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .24


</TABLE>
From: Jwieland@cfl.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:36:44 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Sherrill Wieland

Orlando, FL 32819
No. 63795.

protest 58/25433-10390 (Chicago).

#### D. Recher *&*Co. *v. United*States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of bitters containing spirits, fit for beverages purposes, which are subject to a Federal tax on the alcoholic content measured in whole or in part by the rate of the internal Federal tax imposed in respect of the alcohol contained in the like domestic products. In view of the stipulation and following Abstract 62185, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 69242.

#### Ardalt, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 59/24160, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cups and saucers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. a/c United China & Glass Company*(47 CCPA 1, C.A.D. 719), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### Debra MAYNARICH, Petitioner, v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD Respondent.

No. 00-3368.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 4, 2001.

*954Before RADER, GAJARSA, and DYK, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
From: paulastratton@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:22:52 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,

Paula Stratton

Houston, TX 77095
From: jhgillentine@earthlink.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:25:45 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,

Barbara Gillentine

Yorba Linda, CA 92886
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             917
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,849
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,358)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,759
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,321
<PP&E>                                         208,611
<DEPRECIATION>                                (81,052)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 229,956
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,773
<BONDS>                                        129,486
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        46,711
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,938
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   229,956
<SALES>                                        156,863
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               156,863
<CGS>                                           97,589
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  137,738
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (293)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,333
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,085
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,214
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,871
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.63


</TABLE>
```

[114th Congress Public Law 138]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 130 STAT. 313]]

Public Law 114-138
114th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
99 West 2nd Street in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, as the Lieutenant Colonel 
  James ``Maggie'' Megellas Post Office. <<NOTE: Mar. 18, 2016 -  [S. 
                                1826]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LIEUTENANT COLONEL JAMES ``MAGGIE'' MEGELLAS POST 
                              OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 99 West 2nd Street in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Lieutenant Colonel James `Maggie' Megellas Post 
Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Lieutenant 
Colonel James `Maggie' Megellas Post Office''.

    Approved March 18, 2016.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 1826:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 161 (2015):
                                    Aug. 5, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.
                                                        Vol. 162 (2016):
                                    Mar. 1, 3, considered and passed 
                                        House.

                                  <all>
```
# <tt3-/S" ELECTRONIC RECORD
COA # 02-13-00244-CR Michael Amos v. The State of 

## STYLE: Texas COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM 

### OFFENSE: 42.09 COUNTY: Tarrant TRIAL COURT: Criminal District Court No. 4 

### DATE: 07/02/2015 Publish: YES TC CASE #: 1322040R



### IN THE COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS STYLE: Michael Amos v. The State ofTexas 

# APPELLANT*^ Petition FOR DISCRETIONARYREVIEW IN CCA IS: 

# 7&FU5<fi> DATE: JUDGE: CCA#: 

# <m-/5" CCADisposition: DATE: JUDGE: SIGNED: PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: 

### PC:_ DNP:

MOTION FOR



### ELECTRONIC RECORD
* Judge, U.S. Court of International Trade, sitting by

designation.

** 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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 00-20693

__________________

EDGAR MORALES; LAIQUE REHMAN; NOUHAD K. BASSILA;

GEORGE BRECKENRIDGE; WILLIAM JEFFREY VAN FLEET,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

DON EVANS, U.S. Secretary of Commerce; KENNETH PREWITT,

Director of the United States Bureau of the Census,

Defendants-Appellees.

______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas, Houston

H-00-CV-1010

______________________________________________

October 10, 2001

Before DUHÉ and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI*, District

Judge.

PER CURIAM:**

Edgar Morales, Laique Rehman, Nouhad Bassila, George

Breckenridge and William Van Fleet, Plaintiffs-Appellants, appeal

from an adverse summary judgment dismissing their challenge to the
2

constitutionality of the forms used to conduct the decennial census

for the year 2000. We review de novo the summary judgment of the

district court. Specifically, appellants claimed that questions on

their census forms asking them to identify their race and ethnicity

violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and that those

questions and others also contained in the census violate the Equal

Protection provision of the Fifth Amendment. In addition,

appellant Van Fleet claimed that the long form questionnaire sent

to him constituted another violation of the Fourth and Fifth

Amendments. After careful review of the record and briefs on

appeal and giving due consideration to the oral argument presented

upon submission, we find no error in the district court's judgment

nor in its stated reasons for its judgment. No error having been

shown, the judgment of the district court is affirmed in all

things.

AFFIRMED
Before the Third Division,

February 7, 1961

No. 65144.

#### Inter-Maritime Forwarding Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/16949 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that if the certificate of exportation had been filed prior to the liquidation of the entry or the expiration of the collector’s review period provided for in section 515, the merchandise would have been liquidated free of duty under paragraph 1615, as amended, *supra.*In view of the stipulation and following Abstract 47521, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.