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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44 FREEDOM of PERSONAL CHOICE

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:53:40 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Catherine Bays

, 48116
From: bjstory@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:38:30 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,

Betty Abraham

Atlanta, GA 30345
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January

28 , 2020.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 19

- 00996

- CV

WATER RELEASE VICTIMS OF NORTHEAST HOUSTON , Appellant

V.

THE TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND THE SAN

JACINTO RIVER AU THORITY , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 334th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2019

- 56901

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from a judgment signed December 6, 2019. On January 8, 2020, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the a pp eal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion is granted.
Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM
Panel Consists of Justices Zimmerer, Spain
, and Hassan.
From: arthur.henry@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:44:17 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,

Arthur and Suzy Henry

Portland, OR 97219
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Green Technology
Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, John Shearer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)     The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




(2)     The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




Date:
December 17, 2010




By:
                    /s/ John ShearerJohn
      ShearerChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting
Officer)
Meeting Log

Includes all face-to-face meetings between EPA personnel and stakeholders following signature of the RFS Renewable Identification 

Number (RIN) Quality Assurance Program Proposed Rule (78 FR 12158, February 21, 2013).

Date: 2/27/2013 Location: Ann Arbor, MI and Washington, D.C. via video and phone call-in

EPA attendees: 

John Weihrauch (DC), Mary Manners (Ann 

Arbor), Michael Prince (Ann Arbor), Brent 

Williams (Ann Arbor), Jeff Kodish (Denver), 

Tony Miller (DC)

Stakeholder attendees and affiliation:

Michael Whitney, General Manager, Musket Corporation

Tyson Redpath, Russell Group

Topics/issues/agenda:

Musket Corporation initiated the meeting to discuss the proposed rule, specifically the components of QAP A and the proposed 

exporter provisions.
Date: Location: 

EPA attendees: Stakeholder attendees and affiliation:

Topics/issues/agenda:
ORDER FOR OVER LENGTH BRIEF- [C05-

5580RBL] - 1 

 

Elie Halpern & Associates, P.S. 

1800 Cooper Point Road SW, Bldg. 19 

Olympia, WA 98502 

(360) 753-8055 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

MARSHIA MEAUX, ) 

 ) CIVIL NO. C05-5580RBL 

) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

vs. ) 

 ) ORDER FOR OVER LENGTH BRIEF 

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, ) 

Commissioner of Social Security, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

THIS MATTER having come on regularly before the undersigned upon the parties’ 

Stipulation to File Over Length Brief, it is hereby 

ORDERED that Plaintiff is allowed to file an over length Opening Brief totaling 27 

pages and Defendant is also allowed to file an over length brief of equal length. 

Dated this 15th day of December, 2005. 

__s/ Karen L. Strombom_____

Karen L. Strombom 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Presented by: 

S/ELIE HALPERN____________ 

ELIE HALPERN, WSBA #1519 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Case 3:05-cv-05580-RBL Document 15 Filed 12/15/05 Page 1 of 2
STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE PLAINTIFF’S BRIEF- [«F494»] - 1 

 

Elie Halpern & Associates, P.S. 

1800 Cooper Point Road SW, Bldg. 19 

Olympia, WA 98502 

(360) 753-8055 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Case 3:05-cv-05580-RBL Document 15 Filed 12/15/05 Page 2 of 2
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2015-0095 Directorate Identifier: 2015-NE-01-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Blade replacement 4.0 $ 340.00 $250,000 $250,340.00 6

$1,502,040.0

0

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $1,502,040

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
From: crcurrie@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:02:47 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,

Christopher Currie

Hyattsville, MD 20781
(R.D. 11437)

#### Elof Hansson, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided December 26, 1967)

*Sharp, Solter & Hutchison*for tbe plaintiff.

*JEcfavm L. Weisl, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney 'General, for tbe defendant.

Rao, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court:

1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a find-
Due to the file size of ADEQ’s CALPUFF modeli ng files, they are not available from the electronic docket. These files are available upon request.

Please email your request to: Michael Feldman ( feldman.michael@epa.gov ) or call 214-665-7200.

Thank you.
From: pegraney@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:41:11 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,

Ruth Raney

El Cajon, CA 92019
|                                                       |   | Percentage |   | Jurisdiction or             |               |
|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------|--------|----------------------------------|--------------------|
| Registrant                                                 |   | Ownership  |   | State of Incorporation |               |
|                                                       |   |       |   |                             |               |
| First      Savings Financial Group, Inc.                   |   |       |   | Indiana                          |               |
|                                                       |   |       |   |                             |               |
| Subsidiaries                                               |   |       |   |                             |               |
|                                                       |   |       |   |                             |               |
| First      Savings Bank, F.S.B.                            |   |       | 100    | %                                | United      States |   |
|                                                       |   |       |   |                             |               |   |
| Southern      Indiana Financial Corporation  (1) |   |       | 100    | %                                | Indiana            |   |
|                                                       |   |       |   |                             |               |   |
| FFCC,      Inc.  (1)                             |   |       | 100    | %                                | Indiana            |   |
|                                                       |   |       |   |                             |               |   |
| First      Savings Investments, Inc.  (1)        |   |       | 100    | %                                | Nevada             |   |

----

----
#### Howard Rosenburg et al., Appellants, v Angiuli Buick, Inc., Respondent.

[632 NYS2d 658]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.), dated July 7, 1994, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

*655Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment is denied.

The plaintiff Howard Rosenburg was injured when he slipped and fell in front of premises located at 201 Bay Street, Staten Island. These premises were owned and operated by the defendant, Angiuli Buick, Inc. For his injuries, Mr. Rosenburg received workers’ compensation benefits provided by his employer, Angiuli Dodge, Inc., whose principal place of business was also located at 201 Bay Street. Sam Angiuli was the owner, president, and sole shareholder of the defendant and Angiuli Dodge, Inc.

The plaintiffs commenced this personal injury action against the defendant and the defendant moved for summary judgment alleging that recovery under the Workers’ Compensation Law was the plaintiffs’ exclusive remedy. The court granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint and held that "the mere fact that title to the premises is held in the name of a corporation different from that of the corporate employer should not expose that corporation to suit by the [injured] plaintiff where the owner, president, and sole stock holder of both corporations is the same person”. We disagree and now reverse.

The record establishes that the injured plaintiff was employed solely by Angiuli Dodge, Inc., and that the defendant was a separate legal entity from Angiuli Dodge, Inc. Accordingly, the defendant is not shielded from tort liability *(see, Casas v 559 Warren St. Realty Corp.,*211 AD2d 742; *Kaplan v Bayley Seton Hosp.,*201 AD2d 461; *Bernardo v Melville Indus. Assocs.,*148 AD2d 486; *Bruno v Dynamic Enters.,*132 AD2d 964; *but see, Di Rie v Automotive Realty Corp.,*199 AD2d 98). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.
From: rrbost@bellsouth.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:47:14 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,

Robin Bost

Columbia, TN 38401