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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:42:45 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. 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,

Brad Newton

Virginia Beach, VA 23464
Forest Excluded from
Harvest Land Base

| Forest Included in

5 i} 5 10 15 20 25 Miles

25 Kilometers

Albers Equal Area Projection

Legend

Land Use Allocations

BLM Office

Wild and Scenic River

| lNNI

National Land Conservation System
Administratively Withdrawn
Riparian Management Area

General Landscape Area

BLM Administrative Boundary

Eligible Wild and Scenic River

MAP 8

Western Oregon Plan Revisions
Eugene and Medford Districts
Alternative 3

Forest Excluded from
Harvest Land Base

| Forest Included in

Harvest Land Base

}

Western Oregon Plan Revisions

Draft Environmental

’ impact Statement

North American Datum of 1983 Land Use Allocations
Harvest Land Base
an LINN CO pee
( LANE CO
;
Planning
') EUGENE DISTRICT
MAP AREA
MEDFORD)DISTRICT
MAP AREA
DOUGLAS Ge
OUGEAS. ie — :
rc 2 ee
_p—Tthexson 09 ry
‘
CURRY CO *
CNN ee
+ JOSEPHINE CO
x
Cc
S
<=
z
x
Q
(e)
i
QI
O10
wil?
Z16
=|2
aim
iS
als
7
CALIFORNIA
M06-12-02
No. 63808.

protest 58/21127 (Los Angeles).

#### Zacho and James Loudon & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of chairs similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Davies Turner & Co.*v. *United States*(45 C.C.P.A. 39, C.A.D. 669), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: dbailey@Justsayyes.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:20:21 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,

Dan Bailey

Dallas, TX 75225
From: essiefay@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:03:11 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Esther Donatelli

Tucson, AZ 85750
From: graeflin@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:16:38 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,

Ron Graeflin

Katy, TX 77494
No. 65118.

#### The Best Foods, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 262474—K, etc. (Laredo).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *The Best Foods, Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 163, C.A.D. 751), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Amend. to Executive Deferred Profit-Sharing Plan



 Exhibit 10.5 
 AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE 
 to the 

WALGREEN CO. EXECUTIVE DEFERRED PROFIT-SHARING PLAN 
 The following sentence is added at the end of Section 3.1 (Eligibility): 
 “Effective
January 1, 2013, solely for purposes of determining Plan eligibility, prior Plan Year contributions to this Plan are included in a Participant’s compensation to determine whether the Participant has met the Profit-Sharing Plan Compensation
Limitation.”
From: gbowman@wchs.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:22:21 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,

Gary Bowman

La Habra, CA 90631
No. 60178.

protests 287736-K and 288020-K (New York).

#### Durlacher & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

*314Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silk scarves or squares similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Specialty House, Inc., Bryant & Heffernan, Inc., et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 136, C. A. D. 585), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
| COHEN & COMPANY SECURITIES,      LLC, as representative of the several  Underwriters |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                     |
| By:                                                                                      | /s/      Christopher Ricciardi |
| Name:   Christopher      Ricciardi                                        |
| Title:                                                                                   |
|                                                                                     |
| RODMAN & RENSHAW, LLC,      co-manager                                               |
|                                                                                     |
| By:                                                                                      | /s/      John Borer |
| Name:                                                                                    | John      Borer |
| Title:                                                                                   | Sr.      Managing Director |
|                                                                                     |
| I-BANKERS SECURITIES INC.,      co-manager                                               |
|                                                                                     |
| By:                                                                                      | /s/      Mike McCrory |
| Name:                                                                                    | Mike      McCrory |

----
| 1.   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods presented. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   By: |   /s/ James Zhang                    |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------|
|  Name:     |  James Zhang                              |
|  Title:    |  Principal Executive Officer and Director |
|  Date:     |  June 29, 2011                            |
|            |                                           |
|   By: |   /s/ Mandy Chung                    |
|  Name:     |  Mandy Chung                              |
|  Title:    |  Principal Financial Officer              |
|  Date:     |  June 29, 2011                            |
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maurice SAMUEL, a/k/a Dred, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-4750.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 8, 2001.

Decided July 2, 2001.

*125Mary Lou Newberger, Acting Federal Public Defender, Brian J. Kornbrath, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, WV, for appellant.

Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Larry R. Ellis, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, WV, for appellee.

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Maurice Samuel appeals his sentence of seventy-eight months’ imprisonment for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, two counts of distribution of cocaine, and aiding and abetting distribution of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (West 1999); 18 U.S.C. § 2 (1994). On appeal, Samuel challenges the district court’s calculation of drug quantity attributed to him at sentencing. We affirm.

This court reviews the district court’s calculation concerning the amount of drugs attributable to a defendant for sentencing purposes for clear error. *United States v. Randall,*171 F.3d 195, 210 (4th Cir.1999). A conspirator may be held accountable for all quantities of contraband attributable to the conspiracy that were reasonably foreseeable and within the scope of the conspiratorial agreement. *United States v. Gilliam,*987 F.2d 1009, 1012-13 (4th Cir.1993); *U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual,*§ lB1.3(a)(l)(B) & comment, (n.2). We find the district court did not clearly err in attributing to Samuel 418 grams of cocaine found in the search of Samuel’s apartment or 481.48 grams of cocaine converted from monies seized during a stop of his co-conspirators. Further, we are satisfied the district court’s findings were sufficiently particular.

We grant Samuel’s pro se motion to file a supplemental brief and have considered the arguments raised therein. For the above reasons, we affirm his sentence. 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.*
Case No. 8,747.

#### McDERMOTT v. NAYLOR.

[4 Cranch, C. C. 527.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

March Term, 1835.

Practice at Law — Clerk of Court — Failure to Enter Appearance — Reinstatement.

A replevin discontinued at March term, 1834, by negligence of the clerk, was reinstated at March term, 1835.

Replevin, discontinued at March term, 1834, for want of appearance by the defendant.

Mr. Hall, for defendant,

moved to reinstate it on the docket, on the ground that he had directed the clerk to enter his appearance for the defendant at March term, 1834, which he neglected to do. See Williamson v. Bryan, April, 1823 [Case No. 17,751]; and French v. Venable [Id. 5,105], December, 1824, in this court Reinstated.
From: wilson.jaquez@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:45:44 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,

Wilson Jaquez

El Cajon, CA 92021
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LIBIN HE,

Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 14-70954

Agency No. A099-961-299

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 13, 2016**

Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Libin He, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration 

judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

SEP 19 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-70954

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual 

findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations 

created by the REAL ID Act, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 

2010), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination 

based on inconsistencies as to a beating by police and He’s employment in China. 

See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination supported under the totality of 

circumstances). He’s explanations do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. 

INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, in 

this case, He’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. 

Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

He’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the 

agency found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the 

conclusion that it is more likely than not He would be tortured if returned to China. 

See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.