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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:14:40 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,

Theodore Richerzhagen III

College Place, WA 99324
December 23, 1954

No. 58653.

Suit 4786.

#### Atlas Fibers Co., Inc. *v.*United States.

Garnetted Rayon Waste — Drawback.—C. D. 1528 affirmed June 24, 1954. C. A. D. 572.
From: jackt2@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:37:39 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,

John Ellis Thompson

Newburgh, IN 47630
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-20188

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARLON ADALID CANALES-ALMENDARES, also known as Carlos 

Ramirez Vasquez, also known as Marlon Adalid Canales-Almedares, also 

known as Carlos Abila Almembares, also known as Carlos Abila-Almenvares, 

also known as Carlos Ramirez-Vasquez, also known as Carlos Pena, also 

known as Marlo Canales, also known as Marlon Adalid Canales Almendares,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CR-578-1

Before JOLLY, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Marlon Adalid 

Canales-Almendares has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 21, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-20188 Document: 00513883897 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/21/2017
No. 16-20188

2

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Canales-Almendares has not filed a 

response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the 

record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-20188 Document: 00513883897 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/21/2017
(October 19, 1995)

#### In the Matter of Lisa L., Respondent, v Anthony H., Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 561]

—Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Richard Ross, J.), entered on or about May 18, 1994, which *300awarded custody of the parties’ minor child to petitioner mother, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Custody determinations are ordinarily a matter of discretion for the hearing court, whose determination should be accorded deference on appeal *(Matter of Davis v McIntosh,*202 AD2d 354). A thorough review of the record supports the court’s award of sole custody to the natural mother as being in the best interests of the child. Although appellant was awarded sole custody of his son in 1989 when the child was almost three years old, beginning 1991, when appellant moved from his parent’s home in the Bronx to an apartment in Mount Vernon, the child remained with his grandparents. The record also reveals that the mother is fully capable of properly caring for her son, who, during an in camera interview, expressed a preference for living with her.

We have reviewed appellant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Asch, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.
From: jakeh3@ix.netcom.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:01:31 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,

Jake Hanson

Cypress, TX 77429
No. 75-1499.

#### Busse *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. P69/36.

protest 67/12193(B) (New York).

#### Robert Bosch Corp. *v.*United States,

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of spark plugs sim*1066ilar in. all material respects to those the subject of *Lodge Spark Plug Co.*v. *United States*(49 Cust. Ct. 158, C.D. 2379), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Demetrick James v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-17-00300-CR

Trial court case number: 1510754

Trial court: 262nd District Court of Harris County

This Court’s April 24, 2018 Second Order of Abatement had abated and remanded

this case to the trial court to conduct a late-brief hearing within 30 days of that order to 

determine whether appellant’s counsel, Natalie Schultz, had abandoned the appeal. The 

Order of Abatement also stated that if appellant’s counsel filed an appellant’s brief along 

with an extension request and a motion to reinstate in this Court, this Court may 

withdraw that Order and reinstate the appeal.

On May 14, 2018, appellant’s counsel filed an appellant’s brief in this Court. 

Although appellant did not file an extension request or motion to reinstate, the Court 

suspends the operation of Rule 38.6(d) because appellant’s brief appears to comply with 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2, 38.1, 38.6(d).

Accordingly, the Court sua sponte reinstates this appeal and directs the Clerk of 

this Court to REINSTATE this case on the Court’s active docket, withdraw the Second 

Order of Abatement, and file appellant’s brief as of May 14, 2018.

The State’s brief, if any, is ORDERED to be filed within 30 days of the date of 

this Order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2, 38.6(b), (d).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: May 22, 2018
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 0 502

_____________________________
P R O B ODY C OLLISION C ENTER , I NC

. and A SCENDANT C LAIMS S ERVICES , Appellant s ,

v.

C ARLOS H ERRERA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims

. Margret G. Kerr , Judge

.
Date of Accident: October 7, 2016.

September 6, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , R AY , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Kimberly J. Fernandes of Kelley Kronenberg, P.A., Tallahassee
, for Appellant s

.
Bram J. Gechtman of Law Offices of Bra m J. Gechtman, P.A., Miami
, for Appellee.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-50571 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CURTIS SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-95-CR-226-1

- - - - - - - - - - May 28, 1997 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Curtis Smith appeals from his conviction following a jury trial for the offense of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. He asserts error in the introduction of evidence. The first stemming from the denial of his motion to suppress and the second from the introduction of evidence relating to his membership in a gang. We find no merit in his arguments and affirm his conviction and sentence.Smith argues that the district court erred in denying his

motion to suppress statements which he made following his detention because they were the result of the coercive conduct of the arresting authorities. Because Smith did not object to the factual findings of the magistrate judge made after hearing the motion to suppress, he may attack the findings for plain error only. Nettles v. Wainwright , 677 F.2d 404, 408 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc). Smith has not demonstrated that the factual findings of the magistrate judge constitute clear or obvious error that affected his substantial rights or the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial system. See United States v. Calverley , 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc). Based on those factual findings, we make the legal determination that under the totality of the circumstances, Smith’s statements were voluntarily made and were not the result of coercive police conduct. See United States v. Raymer , 876 F.2d 383, 386 (5th Cir. 1989). Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the Government to present evidence of Smith’s gang membership following the presentation of Smith’s direct testimony. The evidence was properly admitted under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) because it was probative of Smith’s intent to distribute crack cocaine and of his knowledge that drugs were located in the house where he was detained. See United States v. Blake , 941 F.2d 334, 339 (5th Cir. 1991). The evidence was alsoNo. 96-50571 - 3 - properly admitted as impeachment evidence. See United States v. Riggio , 70 F.3d 336, 339 (5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 1366 (1996). Further, even assuming that the introduction of the extrinsic evidence was error, it was harmless error in light of the other overwhelming evidence of Smith’s guilt presented at the trial. See United States v. Rodriguez , 43 F.3d 117, 123 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 2260 (1995).
AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
COMPANY'S UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED June 30, 1999 AND
IS  QUALIFIED  IN  ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO  SUCH  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       64848
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                77991
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            144339
<PP&E>                                      121957
<DEPRECIATION>                              120695
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              181384
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       344485
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     12947
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                    350
<OTHER-SE>                                 (477326)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                181364
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            274950
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               430082
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             21832
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           26401
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (176964)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (800)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (177764)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               (177764)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0


</TABLE>
June 20, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

STEPHEN N. RINER AND KEVINE L. RINER, Appellants

NO. 14-12-00339-CV V.

THE CITY OF HUNTERS CREEK AND THE PLANNING & ZONING 

COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTERS CREEK, SPECIFICALLY, BILL 

DALTON, NANCY PARKS, TOD DIMITRY, ALLISON GOWER AND DAVID 

CHILDERS, Appellees

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment signed March 15, 2012 in favor of 

appellees, the City of Hunters Creek and the Planning & Zoning Commission of 

the City of Hunters Creek, specifically, Bill Dalton, Nancy Parks, Tod Dimitry, 

Allison Gower and David Childers, was heard on the transcript of the record. We 

have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the 

judgment of the court below AFFIRMED.

We order appellants Stephen N. Riner and Kevine L. Riner jointly and 

severally to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
H. Res. 513 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

June 25, 2007. 

Whereas Americans are living longer and the cost of retirement continues to rise, in part because the number of 

employers providing retiree health coverage continues to 

decline, and retiree health care costs continue to increase 

at a rapid pace; 

Whereas Social Security remains the bedrock of retirement 

income for the great majority of the people of the United 

States, but was never intended by Congress to be the sole 

source of retirement income for families; 

Whereas recent data from the Employee Benefit Research Institute indicates that, in the United States, less than 2⁄3

of workers or their spouses are currently saving for retirement and that the actual amount of retirement savings of workers lags far behind the amount that will be 

needed to adequately fund their retirement years; 

Whereas many workers may not be aware of their options for 

saving for retirement or may not have focused on the importance of, and need for, saving for their own retirement; 

Whereas many employees have available to them through 

their employers access to defined benefit and defined contribution plans to assist them in preparing for retire-
2 

•HRES 513 EH 

ment, yet many of them may not be taking advantage of 

employer-sponsored defined contribution plans at all or to 

the full extent allowed by the plans as prescribed by Federal law; 

Whereas all workers, including public- and private-sector employees, employees of tax-exempt organizations, and selfemployed individuals, can benefit from increased awareness of the need to save adequate funds for retirement 

and the availability of tax-preferred savings vehicles to 

assist them in saving for retirement; and 

Whereas October 21 through October 27, 2007, has been designated as ‘‘National Save for Retirement Week’’: Now, 

therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) supports the goals and ideals of National Save 

for Retirement Week, including raising public awareness 

of the various tax-preferred retirement vehicles; 

(2) supports the need to raise public awareness of 

efficiently utilizing substantial tax revenues that currently subsidize retirement savings, revenues in excess of 

$125,000,000,000 as of the 2006 Fiscal Year Budget; 

(3) supports the need to raise public awareness of 

the importance to save adequately for retirement and the 

availability of tax-preferred employer-sponsored retirement savings vehicles; and 

(4) calls on the States, localities, schools, universities, nonprofit organizations, businesses, other entities, 

and the people of the United States to observe this week 
3 

•HRES 513 EH 

with appropriate programs and activities with the goal of 

increasing the retirement savings for all the people of 

the United States. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
No. 65163.

#### D. P. Harris Hdw. & Mfg. Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 300359-K, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.