alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: norman7209@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:14:32 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I work everyday to protect the lives of children- why do you insist on killing them?

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,

Mary Norman

Colorado Springs, CO 80904
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-13-0065 SAT Date: 11/9/2012 Print Date: 2/4/2013

Related cases : Health related cases : Ecotox related cases:

Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 2 3

Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 1 11

Exposure Based Review : Health: N o Ecotox: Yes
Routes of exposure : Health: Dermal Inhalation Ecotox: All releases to water Fate: ; Keywords : Keywords: IRR-E,S,L,MM, LUNG, UNCERT-SENS, AQUATOX-A,
Summary of Assessment :

Fate : Fate Summary: P-13-0063-77 FATE: Estimations for Liquid with MP < 25 C (E) log Kow = 3.30 (E) S = Dispersible / 73.2 mg/L at 25 C (ICB / E) VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E) BP > 400 C (E) H < 1.00E-8 (E) log Koc = 5.66 (E) log Fish BCF = 1.85 (E)log Fish BAF = 1.79 (E) POTW removal (%) = 90 via sorption Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = wk-mo Sorption to soils/sediments = v.strong PBT Potential: P1B1 *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl

Health : Health Summary: Absorption is poor through the skin, moderate through the GI tract, and good through the lungs based on analogs. The PMN material is expected to be a strong irritant to all exposed tissues based on the amines and the surfactant properties of the material. There is also concern for lung effects if respirable particles are inhaled based on cationic binding to lung tissues and/or interference with the natural surfactant balance in the lungs. There is uncertain concern for sensitization for the moieties. Moderate concern.

Ecotox :
Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 1.3 aliphatic amine SAR daphnid 48-h LC50 0.21 aliphatic amine SAR green algal 96-h EC50 0.078 amide SAR fish

_ chronic value 0.012 amide SAR daphnid

_ chronic value 0.023 aliphatic amine SAR

algal

_ chronic value 0.038 aliphatic amine SAR

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge

_ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for aliphatic amines and amides; SAR chemical class = aliphatic amine, amide; ; liquid; log Kow = 5.15 (EPI); S = dispersible in water at 25 C (P); p H7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured concentrations; hardness < 150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) 1 amide SAR

SARs aliphatic amines and amides SAR Class aliphatic amine, amide Ecotox Category N oneEcotox Factors Comments:

SAT Chair: Becky Jones
From: gebling@conncore.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:32:35 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,

Gayle Ebling

Amarillo, TX 79106
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999             JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-02-1998             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998             OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                           7,360                   7,360
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,317                  27,317
<ALLOWANCES>                                       351                     351
<INVENTORY>                                     17,729                  17,729
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,517                  54,517
<PP&E>                                          49,057                  49,057
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,962                   8,962
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 227,788                 227,788
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,761                  21,761
<BONDS>                                        141,289                 141,289
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                      60,697                  60,697
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   227,788                 227,788
<SALES>                                         45,055                 139,159
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                45,055                 139,159
<CGS>                                           27,277                  81,798
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,277                  81,798
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     8                      16
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,712                  11,089
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,560                  11,063
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,096                   4,429
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,464                   6,634
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,464                   6,634
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23





Stan J.H. Lee, CPA


2160 North Central Rd.  Suite 209 o Fort Lee o NJ 07024


Mailing address: P.O. Box 436402 o San Diego o CA o 92143-9402





619-623-7799 Fax 619-564-3408 E-mail) stan2u@gmail.com





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





To Whom It May Concern:





The firm of Stan J.H. Lee, CPA consents to the inclusion of our report of  April 14, 2011 on the audited financial statements of Innovative Wireless Technologies Inc. as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, in any filings that are necessary now or in the future with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.





Very truly yours,





/s/ Stan J.H. Lee, CPAStan J.H. Lee, CPAFort Lee, NJ 07024April 14, 2011
No. 61483.

#### S. Farber & Sons et al. *v.*United States,

protests 141548-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fox skins similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *O. Brager-Larsen*(36 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 388) or *Sam Forwand Co.*v. *United States*(37 Cust. Ct. 232, C. D. 1829), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 66485.

#### John Wanamaker, Phila., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 313441-K, etc. (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of map measures similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Kaufman & Vinson Co.*v. *United States*(44 Cust. Ct. 238, C.D. 2180), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
COMARCO, Inc.

         We  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  Registration
Statements Nos. 33-37863,  33-44943,  33-45096,  33-50068, and 33-63219 on Forms
S-8 of  COMARCO,  Inc.  of our report  dated  March 17,  1999,  relating  to the
consolidated balance sheets of COMARCO,  Inc. and Subsidiaries as of January 31,
1999 and 1998, and the related consolidated  statements of income and cash flows
and  comprehensive  income and the related schedule for each of the years in the
three-year  period ended January 31, 1999,  which report  appears in the January
31, 1999 annual report on Form 10-K of COMARCO, Inc. and Subsidiaries.






                                                       KPMG LLP

McLean, Virginia
April 30, 1999
No. 59726.

#### Martin Heavey Provision Co. and J. J. Murphy & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 209475-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beef similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Swift & Company et al.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 212, C. D. 1655), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: gbridges@windstream.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:41:58 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,

Glenda Bridges

Danielsville, GA 30633
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

RL.S. Rental Company, Inc,. 

d/b/a Mizzou Aviation 

Complainant, 

v. 

City of Joplin, Missouri 

Respondent. 

FAADocketNo. 16-13-06 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules ofPractice for Federally-Assisted 

Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 16, subpart B, 

the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby 

extended to September 30, 2015. 

An extension of time is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in 

this case. 

Randall S. Fiertz 

Director, Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis 

Date' ' 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 31, 2015, I caused to be placed in the United States mail 

(first class mail, postage paid) a true copy of the Notice of Extension of Time addressed to: 

Counsel for Complainant: 

Shelley A. Ewalt 

McBreen & Kopko 

500 North Broadway 

Jericho, NY 11753 

Respondent: 

Mr. Peter Edwards 

602 South Main Street 

Joplin, MO 64801 

Copy to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket, AGC-61 0 

FAA Airport Compliance and Field Operations, AC0-1 00 

~Pit.~/ Claudia Rol:ierts ?/ 

Office of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis
#### Khaim KHAIMOV, Appellant, v. Karolina ZERETSKY; Marvin Silver; Joy Bartscher; Pedro Bahamone; Dan Larson; Janet Zander, Appellees.

No. 01-1345.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 5, 2001.

Filed: July 10, 2001.

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Khaim Khaimov appeals the district court’s preservice dismissal without prejudice of Khaimov’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Khaimov alleged that various persons cheated him of his wages, conspired to have him committed to a mental institution and falsely prosecuted for theft, and committed other wrongs against him. After de novo review of the record, we conclude dismissal was proper because no federal statutory right was at issue, *see*28 U.S.C. § 1331; none of the named defendants was a state actor within the meaning of § 1983, *see Gentry v. City of Lee’s Summit,*10 F.3d 1340, 1342 (8th Cir.1993); and the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction *439over any arguably perceivable state law claims, *see 28*U.S.C. § 1332.

Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47A(a).
Case No. 8,782.

#### McELROY v. ENGLISH.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 528.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1824.

Sunday — Bills and Notes — Days op Grace.

If Sunday be the last day of grace on a promissory note, demand on Saturday is not too soon, and notice on Monday is not too late.

Assumpsit against the endorser of a promissory note. The parties all resided in Georgetown. Sunday was the last day of grace. Payment was demanded on Saturday, and notice given to the defendant on the Monday following.

THE COUNT

(THRUSTON. Circuit Judge, absent),

said the demand was not too soon and the notice not too late.
From: judy.baker@c-a-m.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:50:43 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,

Judith Baker

Katy, TX 77493
From: swiatecki@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:37:50 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,

Joyce Swiatecki

Columbus, OH 43209
No. P68/496.

protest 66/10903 (San Francisco).

#### A. D. Sutton & Sons *v.*United States,

Maletz, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of nodding head animals similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Wilson’s Customs*Clearance, *Inc.*v. *United States*(59 Cust. Ct. 36, C.D. 3061), and that said merchandise is wholly or in chief value of papier mache, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.