alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: davelizsmith@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:16:14 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,

Elizabeth Smith

Cranston, RI 02921
From: bobbie.meaders@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:11:06 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,

Bobbie Meaders

Foxworth, MS 39483
Case No. 8,767.

#### MACDONALD v. SHEPARD et al.

[4 Ban. & A. 343.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts.

June, 1879.

Patents — Dress Protector — Essential Part or Invention.

*Held,*that the “fluted or plaited border” of the complainant’s dress protector, for which letters patent No. 155,534 were granted to her September 29th, 1874, is not an essential part of the invention.

[Cited in Macdonald v. Sidenberg, Case No. 8.-708; Day v. Combination Rubber Co., 2 Fed. 571.]

[This was a bill in equity by Helen M. Macdonald against John Shepard and others for the alleged infringement of a patent skirt protector.]

B. F. Butler, for complainant.

E. N. Dickerson, for defendants.

LOWELL, Circuit Judge.

On this motion for an injunction, the plaintiff’s evidence of infringement is somewhat vague; but, on looking at the defendants’ affidavits, the exact article sold by them is shown. This article is a skirt protector, within the description of the plaintiff’s patent, which was sustained by Shepley, J., Macdonald v. Black-mer [Case No. 8,758], and afterwards held *48by me not to be anticipated by the De Forest patent [Id. 8,757], unless the “fluted or plaited” border is an essential part of the invention, so that a plain or straight border not gathered into plaits will be without the scope of the patent. This question has caused me much doubt, but, upon looking at the evidence and the arguments in the principal case, on bo'h sides, I do not think that anything turned upon that part of the description. I understand that the fluting or plaiting is merely a part of the finish, proper and, perhaps, necessary, when the skirt to be protected is made of a certain shape, unnecessary when it is of another shape. It seems to me that both parties took for granted, in that case, that a skirt protector, not plaited, would defeat the plaintiff’s patent, if proved to have been made before the date of her invention. I certainly so understood it in deciding upon the questions raised by the discovery of the De Forest patent.

TFor other cases involving this patent,...see note to MacDonald v. Blackmer, Case No. 8,758.]

The other points presented in the motion have been decided in the case above referred to.

Temporary injunction ordered.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>



<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,458,035
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,469,188
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,320,577
<PP&E>                                         137,113
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,036,050
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,668,759
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     29,588
<COMMON>                                        31,267
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,036,050
<SALES>                                      1,354,961
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,354,961
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,216,992
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,835
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                137,969
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            137,969
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    69,769
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        





</TABLE>
From: terrysth@catholic.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:17:16 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,

Terrence St.Hilaire

Dwight, NE 68635
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-19-0000220 10-MAR-2020 08:51 AM
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 183 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 183

 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United 
 States Postal Service should issue a postage stamp commemorating the 
                         Fisk Jubilee Singers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 16, 2007

 Mr. Hastings of Florida (for himself, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Scott 
   of Virginia, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Lincoln Davis of Tennessee, Mr. 
Duncan, Mr. Watt, Ms. Carson, Mrs. Christensen, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Gordon of 
   Tennessee, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Fattah, Ms. Eddie Bernice 
Johnson of Texas, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Cohen, Ms. Clarke, Ms. Jackson-Lee of 
 Texas, and Mr. Al Green of Texas) submitted the following resolution; 
 which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United 
 States Postal Service should issue a postage stamp commemorating the 
                         Fisk Jubilee Singers.

Whereas 6 months after the end of the Civil War, the Fisk School was established 
        in Nashville, Tennessee;
Whereas the Fisk School was designed by its founders to be an educational 
        institution open to all, regardless of race or age;
Whereas the Fisk School was incorporated as Fisk University in 1867;
Whereas funding for the opening of the school was secured through the sale of 
        slave paraphernalia;
Whereas in 1871, a group of students at Fisk University formed a choral group, 
        the Fisk Jubilee Singers, with the goal of raising money to finance the 
        institution;
Whereas in that same year, the Fisk Jubilee Singers took all the funds in the 
        University treasury with them for travel expenses and set off on a tour 
        of the United States and Europe;
Whereas during their first tour, the Jubilee Singers raised enough money to 
        preserve their university and pay for the construction of Jubilee Hall, 
        the South's first permanent structure built for the education of black 
        students;
Whereas the Jubilee Singers introduced the world to the spiritual as a musical 
        genre, emerging as the first internationally recognized group of African 
        American musicians; and
Whereas the Fisk Jubilee Singers continue to tour and perform and have received 
        countless awards and honors: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That it is the sense of the House of Representatives 
that--
            (1) the United States Postal Service should issue a postage 
        stamp commemorating the Fisk Jubilee Singers; and
            (2) the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee should recommend 
        to the Postmaster General that such a stamp be issued.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 346 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 346

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Jack Valenti 
should be recognized for his contributions to public service and public 
                             entertainment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 1, 2007

     Mr. Issa (for himself and Ms. Watson) submitted the following 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                           Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Jack Valenti 
should be recognized for his contributions to public service and public 
                             entertainment.

Whereas Jack Valenti was a proud service member, a loyal Presidential advisor, a 
        Hollywood icon, and industry advocate;
Whereas Jack Valenti was born on September 5, 1921, in Houston, Texas to the son 
        and daughter of Italian immigrants;
Whereas Jack Valenti was raised with a passion for public service;
Whereas Jack Valenti attended Harvard Business School on the G.I. bill;
Whereas Jack Valenti served as a trusted advisor and personal friend to 
        President Lyndon Johnson, assisting with the passage of Great Society 
        legislation;
Whereas for 38 years Jack Valenti served as the President of the Motion Picture 
        Association of America, during which he created the film industry's 
        movie-rating system;
Whereas Jack Valenti was continually a passionate advocate of American cinema 
        and protection of artistic property;
Whereas Jack Valenti's passion for life will be remembered many years beyond his 
        tireless persona; and
Whereas Jack Valenti passed away on April 26, 2007: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That it is the sense of House of Representatives that 
Jack Valenti should be recognized for his contributions to public 
service and public entertainment.
                                 <all>
```
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsCommercial applications and scientific research requirements for thermal-infrared observations of terrestrial surfacesIn the spring of 1986 the EOSAT Company and NASA Headquarters organized a workshop to consider: (1) the potential value of space-acquired multiband thermal remote sensing in terrestrial research and commercial applications, and (2) the scientific and technological requirements for conducting such observations from the LANDSAT platform. The workshop defined the instrument characteristics of three types of sensors that would be needed to expand the use of thermal information for Earth observation and new commercial opportunities. The panels from two disciplines, geology and evapotranspiration/botany, along with the instrument panel, presented their recommendations to the workshop. The findings of these meetings are presented.Document ID19880006797Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsGoward, Samuel N.*(Maryland Univ. College Park., United States)*Taranik, James V.*(Nevada Univ. Reno., United States)*Laporte, Daniel*(Santa Barbara Research Center CA., United States)*Putnam, Evelyn S.*(Santa Barbara Research Center Goleta, Calif., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateAugust 1, 1986Subject CategoryEarth Resources And Remote SensingReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:89704NASA-TM-89704Accession Number88N16179Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19880006797.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
From: armstrong03@comcast.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:43:42 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,

Tommye Armstrong

Norcross, GA 30093
· PROBATE NO. PR35159 

IN THE ESTATE OF § 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

INTHECOUNTYCOURT AT 

FRANKIE LEE SETSER LAWNO.TWO 

DECEASED ANDPROBATECOURTOF 

BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS 

CLERK'S NOTIFICATION OF APPEAL 

Cause No.: =PR3=5=-:l=-=5-"-9 ____________________ _ 

Style of Cause: IN THE ESTATE OF FRANKIE LEE SETSER. DECEASED 

Court: County Court At Law #2 and Probate Court 

Judge: Marc W. Holder 

Appellant: Charles Edward Heim 

Appellant's Attorney: Von H. Shleton, 2038 E. Mulberry, Angleton, TX 77515 

Appellee: Mundy Boggs 

Appellee's Attorney: Matthew T. Williams, P.O. Box 1476, Lake Jackson, TX 77566 

Date of Judgment: September 22,2015 

Date Motion for New Trial filed: .=...N!!-"/A~---------------­

Notice of Appeal: September 30, 2015 

Type of Appeal: Application for Probate and for Issuance of Letters Testamentary 

Assigned: 1st Court of Appeals 

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 10/5/2015 10:48:57 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
Filed for Record 

9/30/2015 9:56:14 PM 

Joyce Hudman, County Clerk 

Brazoria County, Texas 

PR35159 

Linda Hatchett, Deputy 

CAUSE NO. PR35159 

IN THE ESTATE OF 

FRANKIE LEE SETSER 

CHARLES EDWARD HElM, 

APPLICANT 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT 

LAWNO.TWO 

ANDPROBATE COURT OF 

BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS 

APPLICANT CHARLES HElM'S NOTICE OF APPEAL 

Whereas, on September 22, 2015, the County Court at Law No. Two and Probate Court of 

Brazoria County, Texas rendered Judgment and Granted, Applicant Mundy Boggs' Application to 

admit the Last Will and Testament of Frankie Lee Setser as a Muniment of title. And on September 

22, 2015 entered Judgment Denying Applicant, Charles Edward Heim Application to admit will to 

Probate Judgments from which the undersigned appellant desire to appeal to the Court of Civil 

Appeals for the _Supreme Judicial District of Texas. 

Now therefore Charles Edward Heim give notice of appeal. 

- --~--- -- ~~ ~-~ -- ---- ---- -- --

Respectfully submitted, 

1 

Von H. Shelton 

State Bar No. 18211500 

2038 E. Mulbeny 

Angleton, Texas 775152 

Telephone (979) 849-2402 

Facsimile (979-849-8893 

vhslaw@sbcglobal.net 

Attorney for Applicant, Charles E. Heim 

=---------- ------- ----~---------- -- ,_ -~---
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

As Attorney of Record for Charles E. Heim, I do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the 

above and foregoing document was this date provided to the all attorneys of record, by certified mail, . 

return receipt requested, hand delivery or via fax mail. 

Date: September 29,2015. 

-UWJ-¢/ iM/flhAttorney for Charles E. Heim
| 1.   | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The      information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| July      16, 2009                                |
|---------------------------------------------------|
|                                              |
|                                              |
| /s/ Natalie Russell                               |
| Natalie      Russell                              |
| Chief      Financial Officer and Secretary        |
| (Principal      Financial and Accounting Officer) |
|                                              |
|                                              |
| /s/ James Winsor                                  |
| James      Winsor                                 |
| Chief      Executive Officer                      |
| (Principal      Executive Officer)                |