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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:50:42 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 Pomeroy

Del Rio, TX 78840
1 OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION **UNITED ST AT**  **ES ENVIRONMENT AL**  **PROTECTION A GENCY** 

WA SHINGTON, D.C. 20460

**MEMORANDUM DATE**  **:** August 29 , 2011 **SUBJECT:** Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for Fluop yram Registration

( **PC Code 080302**  **; DP Barcode s 353315, 369756, and 385637**  ) **FROM:** Mohammed Ruhman, Fate Scientist

Amanda Solliday , Biologist Environmental Risk Branch V Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) **THROUGH :**  Mah T. Shamim , Ph.D. , Branch Chief

Environmental Risk Branch V Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) **TO:** Lisa Jones , Risk Manager Reviewer

Shaja Joy ner, Risk Manager, RM 20 Fungicide Branch Registration Division (7505 P)
A s part of the new chemical registration for the fungicide fluopy ram , this risk assessment provides an overview of what is currentl y known about the potential environmental fate and ecological effects associated with the proposed use s of fluopy ram ( see attached document)
.
### Geology of the Huerfano Park area, Huerfano and Custer Counties, Colorado

By: Ross Byron Johnson

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1071D

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 6**                            (pdf) 
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
2



    	 



    

 






    	3



    	 



    

 






    	4



    	 



    

 






    	5



    	 



    

 






    	6



    	 



    

 






    	7



    	 



    

 






    	8



    	 



    

 






    	9
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6068

RANDOLPH CROCKER, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

REGINALD WRIGHT; DARLENE A. VELTRI; ROBERT LUCERRO; M. D. BROWN; MARLONE HOUSTON, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-323-5)
Submitted: June 30, 2005 Decided: July 29, 2005
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randolph Crocker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Randolph Crocker, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing as frivolous his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Because we conclude one of Crocker’s claims is not frivolous, we affirm in part and vacate in part the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings. A pro se litigant’s pleadings should be liberally construed, and his complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that the litigant can prove no set of facts in support of his claims that would entitle him to relief. Gordon v. Leeke , 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). Crocker claimed Defendants confiscated letters he intended to send to members of Congress to inform them of alleged prison corruption. Crocker alleged this act infringed on his First Amendment right to communicate with the Government for redress of grievances. The district court rejected this contention, relying in part on Mahler v. Slattery, 489 F. Supp. 798 (E.D. Va. 1980), for the proposition that congressional mail was not subject to the same protections as legal mail. While we express no opinion as to the ultimate merit of Crocker’s claim, we note that the regulations governing the Bureau of Prisons provide that prisoner correspondence with Congress is considered “special mail,” and it is subject to specific protections, including the requirement that it be reviewed only in the presence of the inmate.- 3 - 28 C.F.R. §§ 540.2, .12 (2005). We have found nothing that would authorize the indefinite confiscation of such correspondence merely because it contains allegations that are embarrassing to Defendants. Finally, we disagree with the district court’s assertion that Crocker had failed to allege an actual injury; the chilling of his First Amendment rights amounts to a cognizable injury sufficient to survive the court’s review for frivolousness. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings as to his claim regarding seizure of his letters to Congress. As to his remaining claims, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. We deny as moot Crocker’s motion to supplement the record. 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 , VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED
NO. 07-06-0101-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	APRIL 19, 2006

	______________________________

	MARCUS ROBERT ROGERS, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 108TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

	NO. 50,389-E; HONORABLE ABE LOPEZ, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Following the trial court’s order revoking community supervision which had been previously granted for driving while intoxicated with a child under 15 years of age, appellant Marcus Robert Rogers filed a pro se notice of appeal.  We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

	A defendant must file a written notice of appeal with the trial court clerk within 30 days after the date sentence is imposed.  Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(c) & 26.2(a)(1).  The Rules of Appellate Procedure provide for a 15-day extension in which to file the notice if it is accompanied by a motion for extension of time.  Tex. R. App. P. 26.3 & 10.5(b)(2). This Court is without jurisdiction to address the merits of an appeal and can take no action other than to dismiss an appeal that is not timely perfected.  See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex.Cr.App. 1998).

	Appellant’s sentence was pronounced on February 10, 2006, and on March 22, 2006, he filed a notice of appeal.  No post-conviction motion was filed; thus, the deadline for filing a timely notice was March 13, 2006,1 or 15 days thereafter if accompanied by a motion for extension of time.  By letter dated March 29, 2006, appellant was notified of the untimely notice and directed to explain within ten days why the appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  Appellant did not respond.   

	The motion for extension of time in which to file the clerk’s record is rendered moot, and the purported appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

						Don H. Reavis

						    Justice

Do not publish.
From: Hhthompsn@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:12:29 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,

Henry Thompson

Mundelein, IL 60060
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsSolar Electric Propulsion Concepts for Human Space ExplorationAdvances in solar array and electric thruster technologies now offer the promise of new, very capable space transportation systems that will allow us to cost effectively explore the solar system. NASA has developed numerous solar electric propulsion spacecraft concepts with power levels ranging from tens to hundreds of kilowatts for robotic and piloted missions to asteroids and Mars. This paper describes nine electric and hybrid solar electric/chemical propulsion concepts developed over the last 5 years and discusses how they might be used for human exploration of the inner solar system.Document ID20160003683Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsMercer, Carolyn R.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Mcguire, Melissa L.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Oleson, Steven R.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Barrett, Michael J.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredMarch 23, 2016Publication DateMarch 1, 2016Subject CategorySpacecraft Propulsion And PowerReport/Patent NumberE-19129-1AIAA Paper 2015-4521NASA/TM-2016-218921GRC-E-DAA-TN27085Meeting InformationMeeting: Space 2015 ConferenceLocation: Pasadena, CACountry: United StatesStart Date: August 31, 2015End Date: September 2, 2015Sponsors:American Inst. of Aeronautics and AstronauticsFunding Number(s)WBS: WBS 729200.02.03.01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Keywordssolar electric propulsionelectric thrusterssolar arraysAvailable DownloadsNameType20160003683.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsIDRelationTitle20150019856See AlsoSolar Electric Propulsion Concepts for Human Space Explorationvisibility_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
From: webbelec@consolidated.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:01:19 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,

Patricia Webb

Mattoon, IL 61938
Before the Third Division,

September 24, 1962

No. 67066.

protests 59/28481, etc. (New York).

#### Reliance Merchandise Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of earthenware eggcups similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Ross Products, Inc.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 8, C.D. 2226), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Exhibit 10.1


 


EXTENSION OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


EXTENSION OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this
“Extension”), dated as of January 8, 2013, by and between ZIOPHARM Oncology, Inc., a Delaware corporation with
principal executive offices at 1180 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036 (the “Company”), and JONATHAN
J. LEWIS, M.D., Ph.D., residing at 1522 Fairfield Beach Road, Fairfield, CT 06824 (the “Executive”). All capitalized
terms set forth herein shall (unless otherwise defined herein) have the meanings given to them in the Agreement (as defined below).


 


W I T N E S S E T H:


 


WHEREAS, the Company and Executive are parties
to that certain Employment Agreement dated January 8, 2008 (the “Agreement”).


 


WHEREAS, the extended Term of the Agreement
is scheduled to expire on January 8, 2013, and the Company and Executive each desire that Executive’s employment with the
Company continue to be governed by terms and conditions of the Agreement for a period of an additional one year, which period
may be further extended by mutual written agreement of Executive and the Company following further deliberations among Executive
and the Company’s Board of Directors (or, if applicable, the Compensation Committee thereof).


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the
mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, the parties hereby agree as follows:


 


1.Extension of Term. The “Term” of
Executive’s employment under the Agreement shall be extended for a period of one (1) year expiring on January 8, 2014, which
period may be further extended by mutual written agreement of Executive and the Company following further deliberations among Executive
and the Company’s Board of Directors (or, if applicable, the Compensation Committee thereof).


 


2.No Other Modification. The agreement shall
not be otherwise modified by this Extension in any respect except as expressly set forth therein.


 


3.Counterparts. This Extension may be executed
in any number of counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the
same instrument.


 


4.Governing Law. This Extension shall be governed
by, and construed and interpreted in accordance with, the laws of the State of New York, without giving effect to its principles
of conflicts of laws.


 


The remainder of this page is intentionally
left blank


 



    	 



    	 	



    



 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed
this Extension as of the date first above written.


 


	 	ZIOPHARM ONCOLOGY, INC.
	 	 
	 	 
	 	By: 	/s/ Caesar J. Belbel
	 	 	Caesar J. Belbel
Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	EXECUTIVE
	 	 
	 	/s/ Jonathan J. Lewis
	 	Jonathan J. Lewis, M.D., Ph.D.
From: jensmharper@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:50:44 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,

Sharon Harper

Hesperus, CO 81326
Before the Second Division,

November 7, 1963

No. 68085.

#### E. E. Samsey & Company *v.*United States,

protest 61/4653 (Detroit).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of steel bandsaws in coils similar in all material respects to those the subject of *J. E. Bernard & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(50 Cust. Ct. 41, C.D. 2386), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. P66/181. —

#### Handcraft, Inc. *v.*United States, protests 66/2443, 66/3068, and 66/3069 (New York).

*800FoRD, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of silk handkerchiefs similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Ashear Bros., Inc.,*v. *United States*(55 Cust. Ct. 238, C.D. 2582), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.